Generate ai video

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: provider scopes and locks apply, credits are consumed, confirmation is mandatory, and it is a one-shot submission — exactly the kind of cost/non-retry context an agent needs before invoking an expensive render.

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 compact clauses with the endpoint and the confirmation rule front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the endpoint restatement is low-value filler for an agent that already knows the tool name.

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?

For an expensive, non-idempotent generation tool with no output schema and a nested payload, the description covers cost, locks and the confirmation gate but omits what happens after submission — async job handling, where results are retrieved (poll_job/list_tool_jobs exist as siblings) — and any payload_file vs payload selection guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload and payload_file, including the payload/payload_file exclusivity. The description only reinforces the confirm requirement and adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives the HTTP method and endpoint plus the V5 lineage, but the actual function is only implied by the name 'generate_ai_video' — it never states that it produces a video from a prompt using a chosen model. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like generate_ai_image or generate_voiceover, so the agent must infer the capability.

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 surfaces a critical procedural rule — 'Mandatory confirmation before provider execution; one submission only' — which tells the agent the confirm flag matters and that retries are not allowed. However it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites beyond confirmation, and no routing guidance against sibling generation tools.

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