agnes_video_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature, the constraint on num_frames (8n+1 pattern), and the two modes. It does not mention rate limits, permissions, or the exact return value (e.g., task ID), but the core behavioral traits are well conveyed.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds unique value: async nature, supported types, and frame constraint. No verbose or redundant phrasing.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of an async creation tool, the description covers the essential workflow and key constraints. It does not describe the return value (e.g., task ID) or error handling, but the presence of agnes_video_poll mitigates the need for full return details.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for num_frames (the 8n+1 pattern) and notes that mode is required if image_url is set, which is not in the schema. However, most parameter meaning is already clear from schema descriptions, so the description adds limited extra value.

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 'Create a video generation task using Agnes Video v2.0', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between text-to-video and image-to-video, and mentions the sibling tool agnes_video_poll for polling results, which clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 explicitly states that video generation is asynchronous and advises to use agnes_video_poll to check results. It also specifies the conditions for text-to-video vs. image-to-video and the required num_frames pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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