videos

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: videos take 1-10+ minutes, polling is required, and for 'generate', video_inputs_json must be a JSON array even for single scenes. This gives agents a clear expectation of the tool's 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 structured with a summary, workflow, and action details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly lengthy, every part adds value, and the formatting (capitalised actions, bullet-like details) aids readability.

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 the core actions and workflow well but leaves several parameters unexplained (e.g., token, audio_url, custom_motion_prompt). Given 13 parameters and no output schema, more detail on optional parameters and return values 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?

The description adds extensive meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each action's required parameters, the structure of video_inputs_json, and the purpose of fields like image_key, script, and voice_id. This is critical for correct invocation.

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 purpose: 'Generate AI avatar videos and check their status.' It lists specific actions (list, generate, generate_iv, status) and provides a workflow, making its function distinct from sibling tools like avatars or voices.

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 a clear workflow (get avatar_id, get voice_id, call generate, poll status) and specifies required parameters for each action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives to the actions.

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