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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain what gets destroyed or replaced, how reprocess behaves, or what removing subtitles entails for a multi-field mutation.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no redundant detail. However, the boilerplate opener 'This endpoint allows users to' delays the verb, so it is not maximally front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive nine-parameter update tool, one generic sentence is insufficient. Even with rich annotations and an output schema, the description should clarify partial-update semantics, the special interaction between input and asset_id, and reprocess/remove_subtitles effects.

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 all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself; this sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes nothing about parameter usage, partial updates, or interactions such as input requiring asset_id.

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 ('update video asset that has previously been created'), which distinguishes it from create_asset. However, it does not differentiate it from siblings like update_live_asset, update_image_source, or update_folder, leaving scope boundaries implicit.

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 phrase 'previously been created' weakly implies this is for existing assets, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_asset or update_live_asset. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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