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

With empty annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool queues a video for publication, that video_url is a public link the server downloads, and that platform defaults to tiktok. However, it does not describe the return value, whether draft mode is supported, or what happens if preconditions like phone assignment fail.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the key parameters, then the critical precondition. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool title.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits the response shape and does not mention the draft parameter or how to obtain account_id. The schema covers parameter documentation well, and the workflow is clear, but an agent still lacks full insight into what happens after queueing or how to verify the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that upload_id comes from create_upload_url, that video_url is server-downloaded, and that exactly one video source must be supplied. It also reinforces the platform default, going slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue a video to be published to a TikTok, Instagram or YouTube account.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create-upload-url-tool, which only creates upload URLs, and from submission lifecycle tools like cancel-submission-tool.

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 explains the core publishing flow: set platform and account_id, and provide the video via exactly one of video_url or upload_id, explicitly referencing create_upload_url for the latter. It also states a hard precondition ('The account must be assigned to a phone'). It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool versus sibling submission-management tools, but the creation intent is clear.

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