Veo 3.1 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it starts multiple jobs with concurrency control, returns operation names, and respects rate limits. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or what 'operation names' entail, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value (e.g., return values and rate limit context), with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the complexity of a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and high-level behavior but lacks details on output format, error scenarios, or prerequisites, which are important for such an operation.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'controlled concurrency' which aligns with the 'concurrency' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Start multiple video generation jobs') and resource ('video generation jobs'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'start_video_generation' (singular) and 'get_video_job' (retrieval). It specifies the concurrency control aspect, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to generate multiple videos efficiently while respecting rate limits'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether to use this over 'start_video_generation' for single jobs or other siblings.

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