Generate video

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the crucial latency trait ('Video can take several minutes'), the default model, and the image-to-video mode — genuinely useful operational context an agent can plan around. It still omits what the call returns (file path, URL, or status) and failure/timeout behavior, which matters more given there is no output schema.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then capability options, then the latency warning. No filler and nothing buried.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary concepts but leaves the agent guessing about the return artifact (saved file location/format versus a URL) and how parameters, aspect_ratio, and prompt_flags interact when a bot supports only some of them.

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% and the parameter descriptions are already rich, so the description mostly echoes them ('Optionally animate a start image' restates the start_image param). It adds the model roster beyond the schema's examples, but no new semantics for parameters, parameters, aspect_ratio, or prompt_flags.

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 and resource ('Generate a video clip from a text prompt') plus the mechanism ('with a Poe video bot'), which immediately separates it from generate_image, generate_speech, and generate_music. The mention of image-to-video animation further sharpens the scope.

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 usable selection context (default Veo-3, alternates listed, optional start image), but never says when to prefer this over the generic sibling generate_with_poe_bot, nor any conditions to avoid this tool. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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