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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a URL to the video analysis is returned, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about re-tracking an already-tracked video, auth needs, or the collection side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the action before the return value. It is appropriately sized for a simple three-parameter tool.

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, stating that a URL to the analysis is returned is valuable and covers the return value. However, for a non-idempotent write tool it leaves open what happens on repeat calls and how collection association behaves, so it is adequate but not 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%, so all three parameters (link, collection_ids, collection_names) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Track a video') plus the side effect of linking it to the organisation, which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_video. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-siblings bulk_track_videos or add_videos_to_collection, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus bulk_track_videos (single vs batch), track_account, or add_videos_to_collection (associating an already-tracked video). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Track a video'.

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