generate_video

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

Annotations set destructiveHint: true, indicating the tool is destructive, but the description does not add beyond that. It fails to disclose that generating a video costs money, requires API keys, or affects quotas. The description is silent on side effects, making it insufficiently transparent for a destructive tool.

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 short sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds use-case context. Every word earns its place—no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant details. It is optimally concise for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Critical details are missing: no output schema means the description should explain what is returned (e.g., a video URL, file), but it does not. It also lacks warnings about costs, required accounts, or that the tool consumes credits. For a destructive, resource-generating tool, this omission is significant.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, but it mentions provider names (Veo, Runway, Luma) which align with the provider enum. This provides minor contextual reinforcement but no new meaning.

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's purpose: 'Generate an AI video ad using Veo, Runway, or Luma.' It specifies the resource (video ad) and action (generate), and distinguishes from sibling tool generate_image by focusing on video. The additional context 'Great for YouTube and social ads' further clarifies its use case.

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 some usage context ('Great for YouTube and social ads') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., generate_image) or when not to use. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having accounts with the listed providers, nor does it specify that it is a destructive tool that may incur costs.

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