video_generation

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the tool rejects direct calls and requires a run descriptor, and it warns about duplicate submissions when a task is queued/running. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then critical usage constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 critical workflow (run_skill first, idempotency behavior) but omits parameter details and does not distinguish from generate_video. Given the tool's complexity and low schema coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps for the agent.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 params have descriptions), and the tool description provides no additional parameter semantics. Action, aspect_ratio, duration_seconds, selectedAssetIds, and file_name remain unexplained.

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 project video asset and specifies the runtime context (UGCmind Tool Runtime). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling generate_video, despite the unique run_skill prerequisite being implied.

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 instructs to call run_skill first, warns that direct calls are rejected without an active skill grant, and tells the agent not to resubmit if the task is queued/running. It lacks exclusions or explicit alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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