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

The description discloses two important behavioral exclusions: it does not fetch bytes and does not persist the signed source URL. With no annotations provided, this is useful context, but it does not say what the prepare step actually does, what side effects it may have, or what the agent can expect in return.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the primary purpose and two boundary constraints efficiently, though 'bounded' is terse and somewhat ambiguous.

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 no output schema and six parameters, the description omits important context: what the prepare step returns, how it relates to google_ads_video_upload_confirm, prerequisites, and any side effects. The two exclusions help, but they do not fully specify the behavior for a two-phase upload workflow.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the meanings of channel_id, video_title, video_description, video_privacy, or customer_id. The only parameter-related hint is that the upload is HTTPS, which loosely maps to source_url but adds little beyond the schema's uri format.

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 states a clear verb ('prepare') and a specific resource ('one bounded HTTPS video upload'), and adds exclusions ('without fetching bytes or persisting the signed source URL') that distinguish it from an actual upload/confirm step. However, 'bounded' is not explained and sibling differentiation relies mostly on the tool name.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as google_ads_video_upload_confirm or google_ads_video_upload_status. The workflow position is only implied by the word 'Prepare' and the sibling pattern, leaving the agent to infer the intended sequence.

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