Viddler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavioral effect: 'Reverts to the public playback id so the video plays without a password again.' This adequately discloses the result of the action.

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 a single sentence of 24 words, conveying the action and effect with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the action and result. Minor gaps include missing prerequisites or error conditions, but these are not critical for this straightforward operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description of video_id as 'Video id or uniqueId.' The parameter semantics are entirely covered by the input schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Turn off password protection for a video' with the specific verb 'Turn off' and resource 'password protection'. It distinguishes from siblings like viddler_access_set_password by describing the opposite action.

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 description implies when to use (to remove password protection) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling names offer context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description only mentions that it 'Returns the updated video' but omits critical behaviors such as what happens if the custom URL is already taken (the schema says 'must be unique' but the description does not address this) or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and return value without unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. However, it could briefly mention the uniqueness constraint or error scenarios for completeness.

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. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply rephrases the parameter purpose without providing additional constraints or examples.

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 clearly states that the tool sets a custom URL slug for a video to make it branded and human-friendly for sharing, and distinguishes it from sibling access tools like set_password and remove_password.

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 description implies usage for sharing videos with a custom slug but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other access or video editing tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that playback requires the password during protection and that Viddler swaps to a Mux signed-playback id, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing passwords) or permission requirements.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description explains the behavior and return value (updated protection state). It lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., video existence, user permissions) and error conditions, but overall it covers the main functionality well.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds that the password is a 'secret' viewers must enter, which provides minimal additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter details adequately.

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 uses the verb 'gate' and specifies the resource 'a video behind a secret password', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like viddler_access_remove_password (remove password) and viddler_access_set_custom_url (custom URL) by focusing on password protection.

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 description implies when to use (when needing password protection) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like remove_password or set_custom_url. The context from sibling tools suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation returning specific data. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every piece of information is relevant and earned.

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?

The tool has no parameters or output schema, and the description explains the return data. It is sufficient for the agent's purpose, though it could be more explicit about authentication context and return format. Nearly complete for a simple tool.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (empty object, 100% coverage). With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the return data (plan, quota, video count), which is beyond the schema's empty properties.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly states the resource ('authenticated account's plan, quota used/remaining, and video count'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'viddler_analytics_get_views' and 'viddler_videos_list' by focusing on account-level usage.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied as the go-to for account-level analytics, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as non-destructiveness, rate limits, or data volume. The mention of 'remaining/available views' hints at a quota but is unclear.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the main data points returned (total views, remaining/available views, viewer log). It could be more detailed on return structure or pagination, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple analytics tool.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states for the parameter 'video_id'. The baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the tool returns view counts and per-view records for a video, listing specific data (total views, remaining/available views, viewer log). It distinguishes from sibling tools like viddler_analytics_account_usage by focusing on per-video analytics.

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 description implies this tool is useful for retrieving view analytics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are stated.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It implies submission (not read-only) but does not detail response behavior or side effects. Adequate for a simple feedback tool, but could mention that submission is not reversible or that it creates a ticket.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose and audience; second sentence gives category guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use categories, and optional URL. Missing details about response or confirmation, but acceptable for a simple submission tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds extra value by clarifying the default intent for 'feature' and that 'feature' is the default category. This goes beyond the schema, which only describes each field.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is for filing feature requests, bug reports, or general feedback to the Viddler team. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on access, analytics, or video management.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use (for feedback) and how to categorize ('feature', 'bug', 'general'). Mentions the feedback goes into the same queue as the in-app widget. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is narrow enough.

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

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

Discloses necessary details: returns pre-signed URL (no auth needed for PUT), requires videos:write token, and implies idempotent nature. No annotations provided, but description covers key behaviors.

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 sentences + token note are efficient and front-loaded with purpose. Includes a helpful code example without verbosity.

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?

Completely explains the two-step upload process, return values, and requirements despite no output schema. Simple tool with one optional param, so description is fully adequate.

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?

Single optional parameter 'title' is described in schema (max length, optional). Description adds no extra info beyond schema. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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?

Explicitly states it's step 1 of uploading a video, returns uploadId and uploadUrl, and distinguishes from sibling tool viddler_videos_register (step 2).

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?

Provides clear context: use as first step, then call viddler_videos_register; includes curl example and token requirement. No ambiguity about when to use.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses polling behavior and that muxPlaybackId may be pending, but lacks details on error handling, authorization, rate limits, or side effects. Provides moderate transparency.

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 sentences, no filler. First sentence lists fields, second provides usage guidance. Both earn their place.

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?

Given single parameter, no output schema, and polling nuance, description covers core functionality and usage. Missing error scenarios, but adequate for a simple fetch tool.

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% with one parameter described as 'Video id or uniqueId.' Description adds minor value by clarifying it can be an ID or uniqueId, but does not elaborate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch the full record for one video' and lists specific fields (status, playback id, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like viddler_videos_list and viddler_videos_create_upload by specifying singular record retrieval and polling usage.

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?

Explicitly recommends polling after create_upload until muxPlaybackId is no longer 'pending', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the polling guidance is strong.

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

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only states it lists videos, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether it returns all videos at once. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could include a brief note about what is returned without becoming wordy, so it is not maximally efficient.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks any information about return format, whether the list is paginated, or what fields are included. An agent might need to infer or risk misinterpreting the output.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% documentation coverage. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits irrelevant details.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'videos', and the scope 'owned by the authenticated account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like viddler_videos_get (which likely retrieves a single video) and viddler_videos_create_upload (which creates). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies that the tool is used to list all videos for the authenticated user, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like viddler_videos_get for specific video retrieval. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, relying on implied context from sibling names.

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

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

Discloses that muxPlaybackId will be 'pending' initially, typical processing time under a minute, and AI generation of omitted fields. No annotations provided, so description fully compensates.

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?

Three concise sentences, no unnecessary words, logically ordered from prerequisite to behavior to post-call action.

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?

Complete for a step in a multi-step process; explains return value and polling behavior despite missing output schema. No gaps given the context.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds context about upload_id being from previous step and AI fallback for title/description, adding value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly identifies as step 2 of uploading, after file PUT, to create video record. Distinguishes from sibling tools like viddler_videos_create_upload and viddler_videos_get.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after PUT to uploadUrl), what to do after (poll viddler_videos_get), and optional behavior (AI generates title/description if omitted).

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'update', which implies mutation, but lacks details on side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error handling) that would aid the agent in understanding full implications.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for 'video_id' and 'description'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a video's description' is specific and directly states the action and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like viddler_videos_set_title, which sets the title instead.

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 description implies when to use this tool (to change a video's description), but provides no guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without contextual decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update' which implies mutation, but provides no details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether other fields remain unchanged. This is minimal information.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too terse, missing context that could make it more helpful.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not provide sufficient context. It omits what happens after updating (e.g., return value, confirmation), error conditions, or that other fields are unaffected. For a simple tool, this may suffice but still leaves gaps.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it updates a video's title, using a specific verb ('update') and resource ('video's title'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like viddler_videos_set_description, which updates the description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with similar tools like viddler_videos_set_description.

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