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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety basics are covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact the name does not imply: this call also publishes the video, and a preview_url is available first. It omits idempotency and what happens if the upload was never started.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action ('finish a video upload, then publish it') is front-loaded ahead of the secondary UX advice. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the crucial side effect (publishing) and the preview affordance. A brief note on when this fails or that it must follow start_video_upload would make it complete.

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% for the single video_id parameter, and the schema already says it comes from start_video_upload. The description adds no additional meaning (format, validation, or failure behavior) beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description names a specific two-step action (finish the video upload, then publish it) and explicitly names the sibling tool that performs the publish (publish_instagram_video). That distinguishes it from confirm_image_upload and start_video_upload without opening schemas. It stops short of a fully self-contained statement of what 'finish' validates.

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 one concrete usage instruction: offer the user `preview_url` to watch before publishing. That implies the intended workflow ordering, but it never states when this tool should be called versus start_video_upload, confirm_image_upload, or publish_instagram_video directly, and gives no preconditions (e.g., upload must be completed).

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