gemini-media-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is an async operation, requires specific prerequisites (operation ID), and has a workflow dependency (polling with video_status and retrieval with download_video). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the essential behavioral traits for proper usage.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the purpose, specifies prerequisites, and explains the async workflow. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 the tool's complexity (async operation with dependencies) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, and workflow, though it could mention error handling or model tier constraints more explicitly. The 100% schema coverage and output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain prompt formatting or operation ID sourcing). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Extend a previously generated video') with the resource ('video') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_video' by focusing on continuation rather than initial creation. It explicitly mentions the requirement for an operation ID from the original generation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for extending a previously generated video with a continuation prompt) and when not to use it (requires operation ID from original generation). It also names two alternative tools for related tasks: 'video_status' to poll progress and 'download_video' to retrieve results.

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