Submit video generation

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

This is the strongest dimension: it discloses that the request is paid, that queue submissions return only a receipt, that a synchronous timeout can leave an unknown paid outcome, and that retry/polling is not supported. That is behavioral context well beyond the destructiveHint=false/true and idempotentHint=false annotations, and it directly warns about money-losing failure modes.

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?

Five short, front-loaded clauses with no filler, and the riskiest fact (unknown paid outcome on timeout) is placed late but prominently. The register is telegraphic and jargon-heavy, which costs some readability but not much space.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return contract (receipt-only for queued submissions) and the failure semantics. Nested lifecycle/ACL parameters are documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though the absence of explicit sibling routing leaves a small gap for a 6-parameter mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: model_id and input must be exact values from the current catalog, and callers must not invent fields or select defaults. That reinforces and sharpens the schema's own warnings rather than merely repeating them.

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 conveys a specific verb+resource: submitting a paid model request that is only issued after native input-schema validation, with exact model_id/input required. It never actually says 'video' (that lives in the name/title), so the action is clear but the resource type is inferred. It does not name the sibling tools (run_model, generate_image, submit_job) it must be distinguished from.

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 real constraints — do not invent fields or pick defaults, no retry or polling — which implicitly routes the agent away from re-submitting on timeout. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over run_model, generate_image, or submit_job, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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