Generate video clip

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: expected latency of 1-3 minutes with HIGH/MAX running longer, and the polling expectation. It could go further on failure/retry behavior, but this is solid added context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then optionality, then operational timing. The final 'keep polling calmly' sentence is informal but earns its place as behavioral guidance. No significant padding.

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 12-parameter, all-optional generation tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies the missing non-schema essentials: input modalities and expected latency. Sibling disambiguation is the one notable 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 every parameter (quality enum, aspectRatio units, audioFileIds vs spokenDialogue, durationSeconds, suppressBackgroundMusic) is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the quality enum values and names some input types without adding format or interaction detail, 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?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (video clip) and enumerates the accepted input modalities (text prompt, images, videos, spokenDialogue, reference audio). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling prompt_to_video_clip or storyboard_to_video, which appear to overlap in purpose.

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 practical operating guidance (expect 1-3 minutes, keep polling calmly, warn the user up front), which is useful when-context. But it never states when to pick this tool over prompt_to_video_clip, storyboard_to_video, or script_to_video, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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