heygen_submit

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call is PAID, requires explicit user approval, must record consent and a cost ceiling, must never invent either, and uses request_key for idempotent receipt recovery. These details align with idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true and tell the agent exactly how to behave around a costly, state-changing submission.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with PAID and the one-time approval requirement. Every sentence carries distinct operational value: approval, cost limit, and request_key reconciliation.

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 is complete for the critical behavioral aspects of a paid, idempotent submission, and output details are covered by the output schema. The main remaining gap is that it does not point the agent to heygen_estimate for determining max_cost_usd, nor does it explain the request payload fields.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does important semantic work for approval, max_cost_usd, and request_key, clarifying consent, spending limit, and idempotency. However, it says nothing about the request object or its fields such as prompt, duration, resolution, and aspect_ratio, leaving the main payload 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 a specific action—submitting a paid request—but does not explicitly name the resource as video generation; that is inferred from the schema and sibling names. It distinguishes itself from retrieval siblings by emphasizing one-time paid submission and request_key receipt recovery.

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?

It gives strong usage constraints: submit once, only after explicit user approval, with recorded consent and a USD limit. It also mentions reusing request_key for receipt recovery and manual reconciliation for uncertain submissions, though it does not explicitly route the agent to heygen_estimate before setting max_cost_usd.

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