publish_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds real value by disclosing that containers process asynchronously and that the tool polls status up to 90s before publishing. It does not cover auth requirements, failure behavior after timeout, or side effects, so it is not a 5.

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 with no filler, and the critical async behavior is placed right after the core action. Every sentence adds 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and multiple publishing siblings, the description is missing decision guidance and account/caption semantics. The output schema and async note mitigate the lack of return-value explanation, but the gaps keep it below complete.

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 document parameters. It only constrains video_url (public https) and ignores account and caption semantics; account in particular is non-obvious and needs explanation of which account it targets. This is partial compensation at best.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Publish a video to the feed') and is immediately distinguishable from image/story/carousel siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with publish_reel, leaving a small ambiguity because reels are also video.

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 provides a required precondition (public https URL) but never says when to choose publish_video over publish_reel, publish_story, or publish_image. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the name/resource.

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