tool_generate_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It does not disclose that generation is typically long-running/asynchronous, what the output artifact or return value looks like, cost/latency characteristics, or that audio requires a Veo 3+ model — all of which materially affect how an agent should call and wait on this tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action, resource, and mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized for what little it attempts, though brevity here reflects omission rather than efficiency.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set of video-related tools, the description omits too much: no return-value expectations, no async/polling behavior, no model-tier or audio prerequisites, and no disambiguation from adjacent video tools. It is not adequate for a tool with this much surface area.

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 reported at 0%, so the description should compensate, and it adds nothing about prompt, duration, model_name, model_tier, resolution, aspect_ratio, audio_enabled, or the output_path/output_filename priority. The nested schema fields are self-documented, which keeps this above a 1, but the description contributes zero parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb (generate), resource (video), and input modality (text prompt) plus the underlying engine (Veo). It clearly separates itself from image, music, and speech siblings, but never names or contrasts with the closest video siblings such as tool_image_to_video or tool_extend_video.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. An agent has no stated basis for choosing this over tool_image_to_video, tool_extend_video, or tool_live_generate, all of which also produce video.

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