Generate media

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

Discloses important behaviors: credits held from App ID wallet, settled on completion, and returns a job for async processing. With no annotations, the description adequately covers safety and async nature, though it could mention failure handling or rate limits.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action, followed by essential operational details. Every sentence adds value.

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 the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, credit handling, and the job polling pattern. It could elaborate on job status response, but the sibling tool likely handles details. Sufficient for tool selection and basic invocation.

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 50%, and the description adds context for several parameters (e.g., text for voiceover, prompt for others, audio_kind conditional, quality_class values). However, it does not explain all parameters (e.g., app_id beyond wallet reference, quality_class differences) leaving some 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?

Clearly states the tool generates various media types (image, video, voiceover, audio, gen3d). Explicitly mentions the return type (job) and the sibling tool for polling (media_job_status), distinguishing it from other tools.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (generation) and mentions the credit holding mechanism and polling with sibling, implying when to follow up. Lacks explicit when-not scenarios, but the tool's purpose is distinct from siblings.

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