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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it states the operation is free for uploads, link ingestion costs one slot, the return value is an id for prepare_post, and idempotency_key replays the first job whatever the settings. It also warns never to reuse the key for a new generation. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs for a non-readonly, open-world import.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then source modes, cost, permission constraint, and idempotency warning. Every sentence carries operational information, and the telegraphic style suits a tool definition without wasting space.

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 still explains the meaningful return value (id for prepare_post). It covers prerequisites, source handling, cost, permission constraints, and idempotency behavior, which is complete for this two-parameter import tool.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real meaning to both parameters. For url, it explains the local-file workflow via confirm_upload versus a public https link, and for idempotency_key it explains replay behavior and the danger of reuse for a new generation.

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 specific verb and resource: it puts an externally made video onto the account as a finished video, with upload or https link as the source. It clearly distinguishes this from video generation by saying the video is NOT made on aicut, and it names the returned id for prepare_post. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as import_link or upload_media.

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?

It gives useful usage context: use it for videos not made on aicut, upload a local file and pass the confirm_upload url, or use an https link at the cost of one ingest slot. It also includes the important restriction to only import content the user may post. It stops short of explicitly saying when to use this instead of import_link or upload_media.

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