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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it explains that the upload happens on the page (not through the agent) and that the human can publish directly or come back later. It consistently respects the readOnlyHint annotation, as no mutation is described. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then immediately gives usage guidance and workflow. No extraneous text; every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It explains the entire interaction flow, including post-upload steps, and notes that nothing is uploaded through the agent. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) complements the description for return value understanding.

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 100% description coverage for its single optional parameter. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own description ('Optional platform hint...'). Thus, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing a link for the human to upload a local video file. It uses a specific verb ('Give'), identifies the resource ('an upload link'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_post and list_uploads by noting that this is for local files without a public 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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool: whenever the user wants to post a local file without a public URL. It also provides a clear workflow: return this link, later call list_uploads to find the draft, then publish_post with the draft_id. This prevents the agent from incorrectly requesting a hosted URL.

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