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 and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's an async operation (implying delayed results and need for polling), mentions specific follow-up tools for progress and retrieval, and hints at potential costs or tiers through model options. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage notes in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical operational context without any wasted 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 video generation with multiple parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, async nature, and workflow integration, while the schema handles parameters and output details adequately.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 ('generate a video'), the resource ('from a text prompt'), and the method ('using Google's Gemini video models'), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_image, generate_audio, or animate_image by specifying video generation with text prompts.

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?

It explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by naming alternative tools for related tasks (video_status to poll progress and download_video to retrieve results), and mentions it's an async operation, which helps differentiate it from synchronous tools like generate_image or edit_image.

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