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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the output is a temporary human viewing page, the share_url must be passed exactly as returned, and direct media URLs must never be exposed. This matches the ttl_minutes parameter and provides context annotations cannot encode.

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?

Two sentences, both necessary: the first states the operation and result, the second states the critical rule about share_url handling. No filler, and the most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the core usage and the essential share_url rule, and the schema documents most parameters. Minor gaps remain: the purpose of sibling get_upload_limits is not referenced, and the three boolean flags are left underspecified, but these do not block correct invocation.

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 57%, and the description does not explain the uncovered boolean parameters (lock_first_viewer, anti_repost_watermark, share_verification_data). The general mention of 'user-provided video' and 'temporary human viewing page' aligns with file/source_url and ttl_minutes, but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Uploads') and a named resource ('VideosTemporales'), and states the distinctive output ('temporary human viewing page'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_upload_limits, which is about reading quota rather than creating a shareable upload.

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 establishes the tool's context (user-provided video) and gives a firm post-call instruction about returning share_url verbatim. The schema adds parameter-level guidance on preferring file vs source_url. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use this tool or when to prefer get_upload_limits, but the intent is clear.

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