Venice Video Queue

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth mechanisms (x402 wallet, API key), NSFW permissiveness, return format ({model, queue_id}), and duration being an enum. Slightly less transparent about failure modes, rate limits, or what happens on queue rejection, but the disclosures present are strong.

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?

Rich with information but somewhat dense and run-on in style; multiple concepts packed into a few sentences requiring careful parsing. Still, every sentence adds value—model selection, operator prefs, auth, NSFW, return/polling, and duration caveat all earn their place. Slightly front-loads the most critical info (queuing + models).

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?

Highly complete for an 18-parameter tool. The schema already documents most parameters well (83% coverage), and the description compensates for the gap by explaining duration enum semantics, operator model preferences, quoting flow, wallet auth, and NSFW policy. Return value and polling flow clearly conveyed. No output schema, but description handles expectations adequately.

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 high at 83%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining duration as a string enum, clarifying operator-preferred model ids, and noting that elements/scene images use @Element/@Image referencing. The model parameter receives substantial contextual enrichment not in the schema.

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?

Clearly states it queues a video generation and lists specific supported models with concrete id examples. Distinguishes from sibling tools like venice_image_generate, venice_music_generate, and venice_video_complete by focusing on the queueing action and mentioning polling via venice_video_status.

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?

Provides explicit operator preferences with default (ltx-2 for speed), premium tiers (sora-2/veo3.1/kling), and task-specific guidance (seedance for video-to-video). States when to quote (always via venice_video_quote) and polling expectation. Mentions auth options and NSFW policy. This is exceptional usage guidance.

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