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

The annotations only mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds concrete behavioral details: Meta fetches the video server-side, a video_id is returned, signed fbcdn.net URLs will not work from the server, and large files should be kept out of AI context via a bash/curl command. This goes beyond what annotations alone would tell an agent.

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 content is dense and has useful headers, but it includes too much unrelated image-upload detail in a tool named upload_video. The flattened action marker adds structure but also strong ambiguity for an agent trying to parse one tool description.

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 12 parameters, a 0% schema description, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the text should provide a complete mental model—yet it leaves ambiguity about which parameter to use for video upload, how auth_account/account are involved, and what the exact call shape for this tool is. The generic media-upload instructions do not provide enough clarity 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 description coverage is 0% and there are 12 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It explains several modes (image_url/file_url, upload_id, file_base64, upload_code) and bulk upload_ids, but it does not clarify required combinations for video, the meaning of title/file_name/file_path, or the role of account/auth_account. The medium does not fully compensate for the low 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?

The description begins with a broad 'upload images and videos' statement and lists upload_image, upload_video, and get_upload_command actions, so it does not cleanly describe a single video-upload tool. The '[Flattened action: upload_video]' hint plus 'upload video from URL (Meta fetches it). Returns video_id' give a usable but indirect picture of the tool's actual purpose.

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 does say listing already-uploaded media belongs elsewhere and that large local files should go through the upload-command flow. However, it does not clearly differentiate this video upload tool from the sibling image upload and upload-command tools, nor does it state the dividing line between when to use upload_video versus upload_image.

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