flow_generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool stops at 'ready-to-generate' and does not trigger the paid feature, which is the most important behavioral trait. It lacks details on side effects like project creation, but the note about the final click is highly valuable.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a critical NOTE. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool. It covers the main purpose and limitation, and the schema handles parameter details. Minor gap: no mention of project reuse or return behavior, but these are secondary.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'Omni Flash or Veo model' but omits 'Nano Banana 2' listed in the schema, and 'configures settings' is vague. The schema descriptions are more detailed and include cross-tool references like flow_list_mention_options.

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: 'Set up a video generation in Google Flow' with specific actions like filling prompt and selecting model. It distinguishes from sibling flow_generate_image by focusing on video and explicitly noting it does not click final Generate.

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 clear context for video generation setup and includes a critical caveat about the paid Generate feature. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use flow_generate_image for images) or when not to use this tool.

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