generate_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is sequential per account, resolution fallback walks 1080p -> 720p -> 480p, unlimited is capped per model, and local input_files are uploaded as start_image. It also lists unlimited-eligible models, giving the agent a clear understanding of system behavior.

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 well-structured with the purpose first, followed by key details and distinctions. It is efficient but not overly verbose; a few sentences could be tightened, but overall it communicates essential information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers core functionality and key behaviors, but given 17 parameters and no annotations, it is incomplete regarding many parameter details. The output schema exists but is not referenced to explain return values. For a tool of this complexity, more parameter documentation would improve 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 compensate. It adds meaning for a few parameters: model (lists eligible models), resolution_fallback (explains fallback order), input_files (uploaded as start_image), and aspect_ratio (default 9:16). However, many parameters (mode, seed, wait, account, timeout, download, duration, media_role, extra_params, input_images, generate_audio) are left unexplained, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 ONE video via the v2 API with automatic resolution fallback. It specifies it is for single videos and distinguishes from the sibling tool generate_video_batch, which handles parallel generation across multiple accounts.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus generate_video_batch: for many videos in parallel across accounts, use the batch version. It also outlines defaults (9:16 aspect ratio for viral clips), resolution fallback behavior, and unlimited-eligible models, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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