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

Annotations only declare the broad safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: the unpublished default state, transcoding duration of 10 minutes to 72 hours, the 'processing' response status, format/bitrate caveats, and the API key requirement.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then layers timing, constraints, and auth. It is somewhat long and the Cotlet/Uscreen naming is repeated, but each sentence carries operational value.

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, the description compensates by describing the response status ('processing until ready'), processing time bounds, format constraints, and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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 parameters like title, file_url, description and category_ids are already documented. The description adds format guidance (MP4/H.264, 8 Mbps limit) that reinforces file_url semantics, but does not explain the remaining parameters, so it sits at the schema-driven baseline.

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 ('Upload a video file from a URL') and immediately clarifies the destination ('Cotlet downloads the file and uploads it to Content > Videos'). It names the sibling publish_video as the follow-up step, so the agent can distinguish uploading from publishing without opening other schemas.

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?

Explains that the operation is safe to run without confirmation because the video stays unpublished ('it runs without asking') and routes to publish_video for making it live. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement, but the workflow context is clear.

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