generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the async operation. Missing information includes authentication requirements, default behavior, rate limits, cost implications, and whether the tool is destructive or creates a temporary resource. This is insufficient for a generation 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical workflow guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 (5 parameters, async operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the async flow but omits information about immediate return values (likely a job ID), error handling, and expected timeouts. The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description could offer a brief hint.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed explanations for each parameter. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema; it merely summarizes the overall task. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides the necessary information.

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 a text prompt using Gemini models. The verb 'generate' and resource 'video' are specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like animate_image or generate_image, it does reference related tools for the async 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 explains the async nature and directs the user to video_status for polling and download_video for retrieval, which provides good usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for image animation) or list alternatives, relying on sibling context provided externally.

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