generate-video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that generation is long-running and that users must poll to retrieve the video URL. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., creating chat messages), costs, or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: it states the action, notes the required precondition, and explains the async polling pattern. It is information-dense without being bloated, and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides essential flow context: it explains the endpoint, the required chat_id, the long-running nature, and how to obtain the result. The schema covers parameter details, and the description fills the behavioral gaps, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 itself does not add parameter-level meaning; the schema's parameter descriptions are thorough and self-sufficient. The description's mention of the polling flow relates to output behavior rather than parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a video via syntx.ai.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on video generation and referencing the SPA flow. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 states prerequisites ('Requires a target chat UUID (use `create-chat` first)'), and follow-up actions ('poll the resulting chat with `wait-for-response` or `get-messages`'). It also directs users to `list-models` for valid `ai_name` values, providing clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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