tool_video_object_edit

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 it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether the call is synchronous or long-running, where the result is written, cost/latency expectations, or permission requirements. 'Using Veo' at least identifies the backing model, which is the only behavioral fact 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean, but the brevity reads as under-specification rather than tight writing for a 7-field generative tool.

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 and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior, output file handling (output_path vs output_filename) and any operational constraints, but none of that appears. For a Veo-backed editing tool whose result is a produced file, the agent is left guessing about the outcome.

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 description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The nested VideoObjectEditParams definition does document its fields (prompt, operation enum, model_name/model_tier, video_path, output_path/output_filename), but the top-level schema exposes only a single undocumented 'params' object, so the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 names a specific action pair (insert/remove), the resource (an object in a video) and the engine (Veo), so an agent can immediately tell this is an object-level video edit rather than a full generation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from neighbors such as tool_generate_video, tool_image_to_video or tool_extend_video, which all operate on 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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set (e.g. generate_video for new footage, extend_video for lengthening). The only contextual cue is 'using Veo', which implies a source video exists but is not stated.

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