video_text_to_video

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the async pattern (returns task_id, poll later) but does not address auth needs, rate limits, failure modes, or cost. The async disclosure is critical but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant phrases. Every word adds value: states action, output, and next step.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow but omits details about optional parameters (e.g., callback_url) and result structure. The async handoff is clear, but completeness could be improved with a note on polling intervals or error handling.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the schemas already document most parameters. The description adds context by linking the prompt parameter to 'text prompt' and implying the async flow. It does not elaborate on unresolved parameters (e.g., callback_url, prompt_optimizer) or clarify the duration/resolution enums beyond schema.

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 it generates a video from a text prompt, distinguishing it from sibling tools like video_image_to_video (image input) and video_agent_query (polling). The verb 'generate' and resource 'video' are specific, and the asynchronous handoff is mentioned.

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 gives clear usage: generate and then poll with video_agent_query. It implies when to use (text-to-video), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use. The sibling names provide differentiation, but the description itself lacks exclusion criteria.

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