generate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions async behavior for video and polling. It fails to disclose rate limits, authentication, error handling, cost, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. However, it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) to clearly separate image vs video workflows.

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 (10 parameters, async behavior, output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output schema, error handling, or parameter usage. It covers only the basic async polling pattern but neglects many crucial details.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not explain any parameter beyond implicit mention of prompt and job_id. No details about tier, model, provider, output_mode, aspect_ratio, or duration_seconds are provided, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 it generates images or videos from a text prompt, specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes between synchronous images and async videos, and siblings are unrelated, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context for using the tool, especially the asynchronous polling pattern for video. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given sibling tools are dissimilar, this is acceptable.

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