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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: the 'WRITE' marker, the ingestion-from-URL behavior, and the platform limitation that raw file bytes cannot stream through MCP. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the action, followed by the most decision-relevant guidance. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

For a nine-parameter creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, the key ingestion path, and the caller-side constraint. It stops short of noting what the created object returns or any permission/quota requirements.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already self-documented. The description highlights `source` semantics (public URL, ingestion, recommended over byte upload), which largely restates the schema's own wording rather than adding new 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new video object') and is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like apivideo_get_video, apivideo_list_videos, and apivideo_update_video. The 'WRITE' prefix and POST /videos endpoint reinforce the operation class.

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 gives a conditional usage hint for the `source` path (use a public URL instead of raw bytes) and explains the MCP transport constraint, but never states when to choose this tool over update_video or when creation is inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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