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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, but the description adds substantial operational context: the operation is free and needs no subscription, returns a queued tool_job asynchronously, requires polling get_tool_job_status, and is rate-limited daily with per-file size and duration caps. It also explicitly separates this free path from the paid complete_upload clip pipeline.

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 purpose and format list, then gives the local-file workflow, gif options, and asynchronous behavior in a logical sequence. Each section earns its place by covering cost, prerequisites, polling, and limits for a multi-step conversion tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so by explaining the tool_job hashid, queued status, polling requirement, and final downloadable URL. It also covers free-tier rate limits and error behavior, making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description clarifies file provenance and gif-only fps/width behavior, but the schema already documents required fields, format options, and gif defaults, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: convert an uploaded file to another format, enumerating video, gif, and audio targets. It explicitly distinguishes this from create_upload and complete_upload, so an agent can identify when this tool applies without opening the 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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance for local files, including create_upload, PUT to upload_url, then this tool, and warns 'Do NOT call complete_upload' because that starts the paid clip pipeline. It also names get_tool_job_status as the required polling tool for asynchronous completion.

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