generate_video

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

Without annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: polling (1-3 minute generation), output format (MP4), ambient audio generation, and storage/viewing (shared directory, browser viewer). This is transparent, though it omits potential error scenarios or limitations.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, time/polling, audio, storage. No unnecessary words, and the most critical info is front-loaded.

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 covers output format, timing, and storage, which is fairly complete for a generation tool with no output schema. However, it lacks mention of file size limits, quality options, 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The prompt advice is already in the schema, and aspect ratio/duration enums are clear. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool generates a video using Google's Veo 3, returns an MP4 file, and distinguishes itself from sibling image tools (e.g., generate_images) by mentioning video-specific features like ambient audio and polling.

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 the tool is for video generation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools. The context of sibling tools suggests image generation tools are separate, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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