create_video_from_xhs

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 the tool downloads images, adds background music, and generates a video, and it describes the return dict fields including style_report diagnostics. It doesn't mention potential side effects like network access, file creation locations, or failure modes, but for a content-generation tool the described behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured with a short summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor issue is that the Returns section is somewhat verbose, but it is useful for an agent to know what to expect. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how to use each parameter, and what it returns. It lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens if the URL is invalid or images fail to download), but for a typical agent invocation it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains url formats, bgm options ('random', 'none', or a file name), duration_per_image default, and style_prompt with a concrete example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the exact format of style_prompt or the expected language, but the example helps.

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 states a specific verb ('create'), a specific resource ('short video from a Xiaohongshu post'), and the output format (vertical 9:16 for TikTok/Reels). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_bgm_files and get_video_config, which are about listing/configuring rather than generating.

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 explains the core workflow (downloads images, adds BGM, generates video) and gives practical parameter guidance (e.g., 'random' for BGM, 'none' for no music). It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, but the purpose is so distinct that the usage context is clear. It could be improved by noting prerequisites like needing a valid XHS URL or BGM files existing.

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