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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: one-time link, single upload only, accepted formats (mp4/webm/mov/m4v), 100 MB cap, 15-minute expiry, and Editor role requirement. It also discloses the return shape (a ready curl command whose JSON response contains url), which is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs for a two-step flow.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the why-not-alternative, then the mechanics, then the hard constraints. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler despite the length.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned (a curl command containing url) and the full downstream hand-off to add_video. Constraints, permissions and file-type limits are all present, leaving nothing material missing for a 3-param tool.

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 slug, filename and content_type are already documented in the schema (including that the extension sets the type unless content_type is passed). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get a one-time upload link for a video file') and immediately scopes it to local files, distinguishing it from add_video and from the generic create_file_upload/upload_file siblings. The agent can route here without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this instead of the alternative ('add_video needs an https URL, and inline base64 is unreliable for video, so use this instead') and closes the loop by telling the agent to pass the resulting url to add_video. No exclusions are left to inference.

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