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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds the two facts annotations cannot convey — the source must be a public URL and processing is asynchronous, so results are not immediate. No side effects on failure or duplicate handling are described.

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?

Three short clauses ordered by importance: what it does, how processing behaves, what to do next, plus a one-line parameter note. Nothing is padded.

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 details need not be restated, and the async lifecycle plus downstream handoff are covered. The only real gap is the undocumented name parameter and what happens if the URL is not publicly reachable.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains workspace (customer slug, optional with a single workspace) and implies video_url must be publicly reachable, but the optional name parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource (Video von öffentlicher URL in die Meta-Video-Bibliothek laden) and adds the crucial mechanism that Meta downloads the file itself, which distinguishes it from a file-upload tool and from meta_upload_ad_image.

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?

Gives an explicit follow-up workflow: poll meta_video_status because processing is async, then pass the video_id to meta_create_ad. It also clarifies when the workspace parameter can be omitted. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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