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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description usefully corroborates and explains the non-idempotency ('each call adds another record'), which is real added context. It omits auth/permission requirements and says nothing about what the destructive hint implies (e.g., whether re-listing the same URL duplicates or conflicts), leaving one gap.

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?

Four tight sentences with the when-to-use condition front-loaded and the exclusion last, which is good structure. The return-value sentence ('Returns the new video record with its language, device, dimensions and URLs') is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, so it is not perfectly waste-free.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and a declared output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite, cardinality behavior and sibling boundaries adequately. Missing only permission/auth details and what happens on duplicate or invalid URLs.

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 all 13 parameters, so the schema already carries the field meanings and the baseline is 3. The description's URL framing ('public https URL' of a pre-hosted file) largely restates the schema's own url description rather than adding new syntax or constraints.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('wants it listed under a tutorial') and names the precondition (an already-uploaded file). The negative clause 'Not for recording, rendering or uploading a video' separates it from sibling create_* tools that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Explicit when-to-use plus prerequisite workflow: 'Host the file first and pass its public https URL.' It also states an exclusion boundary (not recording/rendering/uploading), so the agent knows when to pick a different path.

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