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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: the 15-minute expiry, the presigned PUT mechanism, and the downstream use of the returned path. It still omits auth requirements and size/type constraints.

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, front-loaded with the core action and expiry, followed by the follow-up usage. No filler.

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?

No output schema, but the description states the return value ('returned path'). However, with two params at 0% coverage and no mention of jobId, the definition is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. 'video source' loosely gestures at fileName, but jobId — which ties the URL to a specific Clipper job — is completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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: 'Create a 15-minute presigned PUT URL for a video source.' The 'video source'/'Clipper job' framing distinguishes it from sibling upload-URL tools like create_content_upload_url and create_studio_upload_url.

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?

Describes the workflow clearly: create the URL, upload, then use the returned path as sourceStoragePath when queueing a Clipper job. It gives context but never explicitly names or contrasts against the sibling upload-URL tools, so the agent must infer which one to pick.

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