batch_generate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: conservative parallel batching, batch size cap at 4, and response structure (video.path, interaction_id, etc.). It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but the tool is a generator so destructive effects are minimal.

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 brief, with the primary action in the first sentence, followed by use cases and key constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete for parameter semantics. It does mention the output format (JSON with specific fields) and batch behavior, but more detail on each parameter's role is needed for full contextual completeness.

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 only covers batch_size, aspect_ratio, and reference_image_paths implicitly. Other parameters like task, delivery, enhance_prompt, and duration_seconds are not mentioned, leaving the agent underinformed for 8 parameters.

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 multiple Gemini Omni Flash videos in parallel batches. It explicitly mentions use cases like storyboards and aspect-ratio comparisons, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'generate_video' which likely handles single video 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 specific usage scenarios (storyboards, comparisons, variations) and a rationale for batch size cap ('because video jobs are long'), guiding when to use. It implicitly excludes single-video use, but could be more explicit about when to prefer the sibling tool.

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