text_to_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning a task id, status, and output URLs, but omits critical details such as that the task is asynchronous, requires a text prompt, and may involve waiting. No disclosure of costs, rate limits, or potential destructive actions.

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?

While the description is short and front-loaded, it underspecifies the tool. Every sentence should earn its place; here it lacks key details, making it insufficiently concise for a tool with 10 parameters.

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), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Veo 3.1 task' entails, how to use different input modes, or the meaning of 'status'. No output schema exists to compensate.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters. Schema coverage is only 20%, so the description should compensate, but it adds no semantic value for the 10 parameters, even though parameters like aspect_ratio, duration_seconds, and input_mode are crucial.

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 creates a Veo 3.1 task from text input, which distinguishes it from siblings like extend_video and upscale_video. The verb 'create' and resource 'Veo 3.1 task' are 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (extend_video, upscale_video). It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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