bunny_create_video_library

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only mutation and is not idempotent. The description adds the product scope and replication purpose but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as cost implications, required billing status, or whether the returned object contains credentials/IDs. No contradiction with annotations.

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: the first front-loads the action and resource, and the second cleanly covers the optional parameter. Every word 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?

For a two-parameter create with fully documented schema and mutation annotations, this is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description never mentions what the call returns (e.g., library ID/credentials), which is an important gap for an agent that must use the created library afterward. It also does not mention prerequisites such as billing or region availability.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by labeling replication_regions as optional and linking them to 'geo-redundant storage', which goes beyond the schema's bare listing of region codes; it also frames 'name' as the video library name via context.

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 ('Create a new Bunny Stream video library') and adds a purpose clause ('for hosting, encoding, and delivering videos'). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like bunny_create_storage_zone and bunny_create_pull_zone, whose names alone could be confused with it.

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 clear context: use when you need a new video library with optional geo-redundant replication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Bunny Stream video library' qualifier is enough to route the agent away from storage, DNS, or pull-zone creation siblings.

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