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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses privacy boundaries (ownerContext visible only to project members, publicContext only when public-safe), the project scoping by API key, and the locale/language requirements. It does not cover the subsequent workflow or mutations, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads localization instructions before stating the core 'creates a direct R2 upload' behavior. The sentence 'The answer says so when what you sent is not in it' is vague and adds confusion. It is not excessively long, but it is not ideally structured or focused.

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?

The description never mentions what the tool returns, how to use the result to upload the video bytes, or that complete_video_upload likely must be called next. With no output schema and a sibling named complete_video_upload, this omission leaves an agent guessing about the required workflow.

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 coverage is only 56%, and the description compensates by adding real semantics for taskName, worktreeName, ownerContext, and publicContext: it explains what is public, what is private, when publicContext should be supplied, and how worktreeName should be derived. It does not add much for required parameters like filename, mimeType, or byteSize, but the schema already documents their ranges and enum.

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 that it 'creates a direct R2 upload for an MP4 or WebM recording, filed under the project this API key belongs to,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like complete_video_upload or get_video_link, but the 'creates' language and MIME-type scope make the primary purpose clear.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over complete_video_upload or search_videos, nor does it mention the likely two-step flow of creating then completing an upload. Sibling names exist in context, but the description itself never references them or gives exclusion criteria.

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