upload_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the input sources and return value, but does not state that this is a write operation creating a video resource, nor any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the obvious 'upload' action.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Upload an ad video'), and every sentence adds value. It is concise without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is incomplete because it does not clarify that either file_url or file_path must be provided (even though no parameters are required in the schema). It also omits any caveats about what happens if both are provided, or the lack of an output schema beyond the stated return value. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves a clear gap.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for file_url and file_path, including that file_path is sent as multipart bytes. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond reinforcement of the two source options.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Upload an ad video from a public URL or a local file path.' It names the specific verb (upload), resource (video), and distinguishes it from siblings like upload_image and delete_video. The return value is also specified.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to upload ad videos for use in ad creatives. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like upload_image by specifying video, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. 'Returns video ID for use in ad creatives' gives a clear use case.

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