Generate Video

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 mentions the two input modes and the returned CDN URL, but it does not disclose important behaviors like whether generation is asynchronous, how long it might take, whether costs or rate limits apply, or what happens if generation fails. For a generative tool with no safety annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core capability and return type are front-loaded, and the text-to-video/image-to-video distinction is packed efficiently.

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?

Given that this tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It conveys the basic function and output but omits guidance on model choice, duration, resolution, aspect ratio, audio generation, and negative prompts, all of which would help an agent select values correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for 5 of 8 parameters, and the description adds high-level context that prompt and imageUrl correspond to text-to-video and image-to-video modes. However, parameters like aspectRatio, generateAudio, and negativePrompt have empty descriptions in the schema and are not addressed by the tool description. The description helps but does not fully compensate for those gaps.

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 identifies the tool as generating a video using either a text prompt or a starting image, and explicitly states the output is a CDN mp4 URL. It differentiates from the sibling tools by naming the video-specific capability, making confusion with image editing or image generation unlikely.

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 makes it clear this tool is for video generation, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. No usage context such as model selection guidance or provider preferences is provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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