Create VOD channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the [WRITE] tag is largely redundant. Beyond that the description says nothing about side effects, permissions required, or what happens on partial field sets, leaving the mutation profile mostly uncovered.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the [WRITE] tag and the operation, then the field list. The 'Official FA/EN API Usage + OpenAPI' preamble is boilerplate that consumes space without adding information.

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?

A write tool with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs substantially more: field semantics, required-vs-optional cues, and any post-creation behavior. The description is far too thin for the complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only enumerates field names (title, description, secure_link_*, ads_enabled, present_type, campaign_id) without explaining types, allowed values, defaults, or the interaction between secure_link_key/enabled/with_ip. Naming is not semantics.

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 [WRITE] marker plus the endpoint POST /vod/2.0/channels make it clear this creates a VOD channel, and the name matches. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the read siblings (get_vod_channel, list_vod_channels) by being the write variant, though it never states the differentiation explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_vod_channels, get_vod_channel, or the generic invoke_vod_api sibling. No prerequisites, no notes on what makes a channel valid, no mention of alternatives.

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