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

With empty annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes that the tool queues the video, returns an id and current status, and that the status may be 'processing' or 'pending_credits' if out of credits, settled later. It also discloses the error condition. This goes far beyond a basic 'starts processing' and gives the agent concrete expectations.

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 ~100 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, then prerequisites, then return and follow-up behavior. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail without fluff. It's concise yet comprehensive, structured for quick scanning.

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 a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call, what to pass, what it returns, what statuses to expect, how to resolve them, and what to do on error. The workflow context (create_upload → complete_upload → get_video_status) is fully explained, making 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?

The schema already describes the 'video' parameter as the hashid from create_upload, and the description reinforces that. However, it adds crucial semantic context: the parameter must be used only after the file bytes have been PUT to the upload URL. This extra timing constraint is not present in the schema, so the description adds meaningful value.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Finish an upload started with create_upload.' It states the exact role in a multi-step workflow and differentiates itself from siblings like create_upload and get_video_status by describing the completion action. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to call this AFTER PUTting file bytes to upload_url, and to poll get_video_status for the final status. It also warns that calling it prematurely returns an error, telling the agent to retry after uploading. This is explicit when-to-use guidance, including the prerequisite and follow-up steps.

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