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

Annotations confirm a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing the asynchronous two-step ingestion flow (returned `upload_url` + follow-up PUT) that an agent must execute to complete the operation.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the key differentiator, then the completion workflow and docs link. Reasonably tight, though the docs-link sentence could be folded into the preceding workflow sentence.

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?

A rich output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still names the key response field (`upload_url`). The essential gaps an agent needs — that `input` is excluded and that a follow-up PUT is required — are both covered, making it largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across 26 parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description only adds a cross-reference to Create Asset parameters and the excluded `input` field, which is useful routing context but not deeper semantic detail.

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 (creates a video asset via direct local-file upload) and distinguishes itself from its closest sibling by noting that body parameters match Create Asset 'except for the `input` parameter, which this endpoint does not take.' An agent can tell it apart from create_asset without opening either 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?

Clearly frames the use case (uploading from the local file system) and lays out the two-step flow: call this to get `upload_url`, then make a PUT to that URL, with a docs pointer. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus create_asset, but the `input` distinction and the upload workflow make the choice inferable.

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