generate_video_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parallel execution, routing to least-busy account, 429 failover, and the two modes of operation (wait vs non-wait). It also mentions the image-to-video feature via 'input_files_per_prompt'. It does not cover error handling beyond failover or auth requirements, but the key behavioral aspects are transparent.

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 at about 80 words, structured into two clear paragraphs. The first paragraph immediately states the core purpose, and the second provides usage details. 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's complexity (14 parameters, 1 required, no enums, with output schema), the description covers the essential parallel behavior and the two main usage modes. It explains the least-busy routing and image-to-video input. However, it does not detail other parameters like 'mode', 'model', 'duration', or their effects, which would be useful for an agent to invoke correctly. The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

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 explains 'wait' and 'input_files_per_prompt' in detail, but other important parameters like 'mode', 'model', 'duration', 'resolution', etc. are not mentioned. With 14 parameters, only a few are clarified, so the description adds value for some but leaves many undocumented.

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's function: generating many videos in parallel across all accounts in the pool. The emphasis on 'MANY' and 'PARALLEL' distinguishes it from the single-video sibling 'generate_video'. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('videos').

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 explains when to use this tool (for multiple accounts at once, parallel generation) and how to use it ('N prompts fan out concurrently with 429 failover'). It also distinguishes between 'wait=True' (returns when all done) and 'wait=False' (returns job ids for polling via 'queue_status'), providing clear guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to other batch-like siblings such as 'generate_image_batch'.

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