simplengat_generate_video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does reveal that credits are only charged on success, which is useful, but it omits critical behaviors: it does not state that the call is asynchronous (job submission) nor that the user should subsequently poll simplengat_video_status. It also does not mention any side effects beyond credit deduction, prerequisites like pre-uploaded images (though schema covers some), or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and modes. The second sentence adds pricing and the endpoint, which are directly useful. It is not overly verbose and every part earns its place, though it could be more structured by separating pricing from endpoint, but it remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the overall workflow: that this tool submits an asynchronous job that must be polled via simplengat_video_status. It also does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any error-handling expectations. The description provides only the basic action and pricing, leaving the agent without crucial context for correct invocation and follow-up.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the credit cost per resolution, which is not in the schema, and by presenting the modes in shorthand. However, it does not add significant meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as the required relationship between startImage and i2v modes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Submit video job'), the resource (video), and enumerates the four modes (T2V/I2V/R2V/I2V-FL) that define the tool's scope. It also includes the endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like simplengat_generate_image and simplengat_video_status by the explicit 'video job' phrasing and mode list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for generating videos but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as simplengat_generate_image or simplengat_video_status. It mentions pricing and success-based charging, which hints at when it might be used (e.g., to submit a job), but there is no guidance on when not to use it or what conditions make it the right choice over other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.