flow_generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that execution consumes credits, monitors rendering, downloads the MP4, and that the false path avoids credit use. It stops short of stating error behavior or what happens to intermediate state, but the key side effects are visible.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and model names are front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is packed into a compact, scannable pair of clauses.

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?

The description explains the execution flow well and the schema fully documents parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool actually returns (e.g. status, file path, rendering meta). For a 7-parameter generation tool with return-format options, that is a 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the functional effect of auto_confirm (submission, monitoring, download, credit consumption) rather than repeating the schema's one-line definition. Other parameters remain schema-documented, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and direct object: 'Generates cinematic video clips on Google Flow,' using named models. This immediately distinguishes it from image-generation and connection-management siblings without requiring schema inspection.

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 clearly delineates the two modes based on auto_confirm: true executes generation, monitoring, and download, while false only prepares a prompt and avoids credit consumption. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when a still image or a different operation is needed, but the video-specific scope makes that inference straightforward.

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