generate_video

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that video jobs are asynchronous and warning against duplicate submission. This is useful operational behavior not captured in the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second delivers essential async guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and async behavior, the description provides crucial context (async, status polling) but omits what the response contains or how the final video is retrieved. It is not fully complete for such a complex tool, though the rich parameter schema compensates somewhat.

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 has 100% description coverage, with all nine parameters fully documented including defaults and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so 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's primary action: 'Generate a video through the UGCmind App Tool Runtime.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'video_generation', so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance for the asynchronous case: 'if queued/running, call get_tool_task_status rather than submitting again.' This names a specific alternative and tells the agent when not to resubmit. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this tool over the 'video_generation' sibling, which prevents a 5.

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