generate_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key behaviors: asynchronous execution, immediate request_id return, creation of a remote gallery job that can be optionally deleted, and file download step via wait_video. However, it omits details like potential costs, rate limits, or what happens if generation fails.

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 relatively concise, with key information front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and immediate return. The second sentence condenses the follow-up workflow. The parameter list is terse but clear. The run-on nature of the second sentence reduces clarity slightly, but overall it's efficient.

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 the essential workflow, key constraints, and next steps. It mentions the async nature, immediate request_id, wait_video handoff, and optional deletion. Since an output schema exists, it needn't detail return values. It could add more on prerequisites (e.g., Console context) but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for duration (1-15s, default 8), aspect_ratio (list of formats), and resolution (480p/720p/1080p). However, it doesn't explain image_urls, model, or prompt beyond obvious inference, leaving some ambiguity for less obvious usage.

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's function: 'Create an asynchronous Console video job via Grok2API' with a specific model. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'Returns request_id immediately' and referencing wait_video for downloading, implying a distinct creation role.

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?

It explicitly advises the next step: 'Then call wait_video to download the finished file...', providing a clear workflow. It also sets expectations for immediate return of request_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with generate_image, though the asynchronous and video-specific focus implies usage context.

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