generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it only reveals the output format, model, and T2V/I2V modes. It does not disclose whether creation is asynchronous, how to retrieve the result, or whether flow_status polling is needed—critical operational behavior for a generation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. No filler is present, though the inaccurate 'OBRIGATÓRIA' label for duration weakens the otherwise tight structure.

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 video-generation tool this is nearly viable: all four parameters are explained and the purpose is clear. The main gaps are the missing asynchronous/status workflow (despite the flow_status sibling) and the schema mismatch about duration, which prevent it from being complete enough for confident autonomous invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it defines prompt as scene/camera direction, enumerates the accepted duration values, clarifies ratio options, and explains reference_image as a local I2V path. However, it calls duration 'OBRIGATÓRIA' while the schema marks it optional with a default, so its guidance is not fully reliable.

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 opening phrase 'Gera um vídeo nativo MP4 no Google Flow usando Gemini Omni Flash 1.1' is a specific verb+resource statement and names the output format and model. It clearly distinguishes this from the generate_image and flow_status siblings by focusing on video generation.

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 makes it clear that video generation is the tool's job, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over generate_image or when to use flow_status afterward. Usage is implied by the tool name and first sentence, not articulated as guidance.

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