sora_video_generate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the required COMFY_API_KEY and that all parameters except prompt are optional, which is valuable. But it omits other relevant behavioral traits such as whether the tool submits a job asynchronously or returns a download URL, which is especially important given the sibling queue/job management tools.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that immediately state the core purpose and then add only high-signal facts (text/image modes, optional parameter behavior, API key requirement). Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, but it leaves out the workflow context. It does not mention that video generation likely occurs via a job queue or that the agent may need to poll for status, even though sibling tools like get_job_status and wait_for_jobs strongly suggest this. This gap makes the description adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter including defaults and valid values. The description adds only a high-level statement that all parameters except prompt are optional, which is already evident from the schema. According to the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'a video using Sora 2 via Comfy.org API', immediately conveying what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling video generation tools by naming Sora 2 and specifying two modes (text-only or image animation), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides useful context by noting that generation can be text-only or animate an existing image, and it highlights that all parameters except prompt are optional. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., text_to_video, wan_text_to_video) or state when to prefer this tool over them, relying on the 'Sora 2' reference to imply the use case.

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