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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: supported formats, size limits, video duration and looping behavior, rights confirmation, plan requirements, and specific 402 error cases. It also shows how the resulting upload_id is consumed in a subsequent quote call.

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 dense but front-loaded with the action and specifications. Every sentence carries useful information, though the run-on format with multiple semicolons could be slightly easier to scan.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation-oriented upload tool, the description covers formats, limits, rights, downstream integration, plan checks, storage errors, and where to inspect account state. Nothing essential for a correct call appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful validation details for file_url: accepted formats, minimum dimensions, maximum file sizes, and video duration. It also reinforces the required rights confirmation.

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 a specific verb and resource: upload the user's own photo or video to design a New Look around. It implicitly distinguishes this from stock media usage by emphasizing 'your own photo or video,' which is enough to separate it from the search_stock sibling.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this for one's own media, then quote a lyric video with a specific look payload. It also lists file constraints and prerequisites, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_stock or other background sources.

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