publish_reel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses the public-URL requirement, the share_to_feed side effect of surfacing in the main grid, and the asynchronous processing with a 90-second polling window. It doesn't mention failure modes or permissions, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action, then covers the key constraint and option behaviors in short sentences. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward publish action, the description covers the essential operational context: URL format, feed visibility, optional thumbnail, and async polling. The main gap is the undocumented account parameter, but overall the description provides enough guidance for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's lack of parameter documentation. It adds meaningful context for video_url (must be public https), share_to_feed (surfaces in main grid), and cover_url (optional thumbnail). However, it leaves account and caption undocumented; caption is fairly obvious, but account semantics remain ambiguous.

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, 'Publish a Reel,' which clearly states the tool's core action. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like publish_video or publish_story, but the resource type 'Reel' is distinct enough that the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool by naming the resource type, and it gives a key prerequisite ('video_url must be a PUBLIC https URL') plus optional behavior for share_to_feed and cover_url. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare it to sibling publish tools, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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