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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds that this is a progress-polling operation that eventually returns the finished video, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about timeout, partial states, or what happens while processing is incomplete.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage detail.

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, and the description does cover the return value conceptually (the finished video when ready). However, for a tool with two undocumented, mutually ambiguous identifiers, the description leaves the caller without enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

Two parameters (video_id, import_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions either one or explains the relationship between them (e.g., whether one is required as an alternative to the other). With required=0 and no documentation anywhere, an agent cannot tell which identifier to supply.

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: it checks upload/editing progress and returns the finished video once ready. This differentiates it from mutation siblings like edit_video and revise_video, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies a polling pattern (check, then show when ready) but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus list_videos, edit_video, or revise_video, nor any cadence or stop condition for polling.

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