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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false); the description adds substantial context beyond them: the download/store/process pipeline, free-plan asset limits (new assets limited, new versions free), refusal behavior with an explanatory message, and the requirement for edit access when folder_id is supplied. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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 long but front-loaded: identity of the tool, then mechanics, then the version_of branch, then constraints, then the alternative tool and the code/files case. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact, though the density approaches a wall of text that could be broken into clearer stanzas.

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 takes on return-value duty and discharges it: it names what is created (container_id + url, asset_id/version_id), what to hand back (the asset URL), and how to detect completion (poll asset_status until 'ready'). Combined with plan limits, access prerequisites and the sibling alternative, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the prose adds meaning on top of the schema: folder_id defaults to the team root when omitted and is ignored when version_of is set, version_of accepts either the asset container id or any version id, and team_id falls back to the app-selected team. Marginal added value over the already-detailed schema, but genuinely useful for the version_of/folder_id interaction.

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 from a public URL') and explicitly delineates both the source types (direct file link or Google Drive share link) and the two outcomes (new asset vs new version). It also names the sibling it is NOT (upload_file_start) for local files, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (public URL, code/files with notes+source.zip) and when-not (local file on disk -> upload_file_start). It also prescribes the operational sequence: share the returned asset URL while processing, then poll asset_status(version_id) until status is 'ready'. Alternatives and conditions are stated, not inferred.

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