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

The description aligns with the annotations by indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive create operation. It does not add extra behavioral context such as side effects, defaults, permissions, or error behavior, but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 short but redundant: 'Create video item' and 'Create one CMS video item' repeat the same idea. The '| context:' segment is awkwardly formatted and does not earn its 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?

The schema provides rich parameter context, but the tool description does not mention return values, output shape, or failure modes. With no output schema present, some additional context about what the create operation returns would improve 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?

The input schema already covers all 13 parameters with descriptions, including enums and the nested meta object. The description adds little beyond naming required fields like title, categories, and embedUrl, so it provides no significant additional parameter meaning.

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 creates a CMS video item, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cms_create_video_paragraph, cms_update_video, and cms_list_videos.

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 use for creating a new video item, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as updating an existing video or adding a video paragraph. The 'Guidance' sentence mostly restates required inputs rather than providing when-to-use direction.

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