agnes_video_create

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

The description reveals async behavior and constraints like multiples of 64, frame count formula, and duration calculation. With no annotations, it partially covers behavioral traits but omits authentication, rate limits, and resource lifecycle details.

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 a single paragraph with clear sections: capability, model, return type, polling direction, and constraints. It's information-dense without redundancy, efficiently earning each sentence.

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?

For a 12-parameter video creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return types, constraints, and mode variations. It lacks only minor details like default values for some params, which are in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful clarifications: width/height up to 4K, multiples of 64, num_frames formula (8n+1), and seconds relation. It also explains image can be single or array for keyframes, exceeding schema detail.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a video task from text, image(s), or keyframes, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing polling tools. It names the model and return type, making the purpose clear and specific.

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 guides the agent to poll results using agnes_video_query or agnes_video_wait, differentiating after creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with agnes_image or other generation tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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