runway_generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning a task_id for polling, implying async, but does not explicitly state the need to call runway_get_task for results, nor does it cover rate limits, error handling, or authentication nuances beyond the API key parameter.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently covers the main functionality and the return value.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value (task_id) but does not fully explain the polling workflow or that the final video is fetched via runway_get_task. For a tool with 7 parameters and an async pattern, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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%; all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the two modes (text or image). It does not clarify relationships or constraints (e.g., that prompt or image_url should be provided).

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 video from text or an image using Runway ML, specifying two modes (text-to-video and image-to-video). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like runway_get_task and runway_list_models by indicating it creates a task.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pika_generate_video or kling_generate_video. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to handle asynchronous polling.

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