Submit video generation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this is a paid request, queue submissions return a receipt only, and a synchronous timeout may leave an unknown paid outcome with no retry. That is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the paid/validated precondition and the required inputs come first, followed by the queue/timeout/no-retry consequences. No sentence is filler, though the jargon-heavy phrasing slightly hurts scannability.

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 a destructive, paid, 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical paid-outcome and no-retry behaviors. However it omits how to observe results after a queue receipt (e.g., get_job_status) and says nothing about the confirm/account gating, leaving a follow-up gap.

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 all six parameters well, including the nested lifecycle/ACL objects. The description only reinforces model_id/input ('do not invent fields or choose a default') without adding format or value semantics, so 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 body opens with 'Confirmed paid model request' and only implies the video-generation purpose through the name/title and the passing phrase 'image/video commands.' It never cleanly states a verb+resource like 'generates a video,' and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as generate_image or run_model.

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 implicit operational guidance ('Exact model_id/input required,' 'No retry or polling') that constrains how the agent should behave, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and no routing to get_job_status/cancel_job for follow-up.

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