upload_page_video

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden. The description notes a precondition ('public video URL') and implies it makes a POST request, indicating a mutating action. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether it returns the video ID, whether it publishes immediately, or if it requires prior authentication (which is likely given sibling credential tools exist). The mention of 'public' hints at a constraint but is not exhaustive. Given lack of annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and endpoint. It wastes no words, but it is short enough that it could be slightly more informative without losing conformance. The structure is clear and readable.

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 potentially complex operation like video upload, the description provides minimal context. An output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the tool likely requires authentication, a page token, and a publicly accessible video URL, none of which are mentioned. The sibling set includes credential tools, suggesting auth is needed, but that is not noted. The description should mention prerequisites or caveats, so it is missing critical context.

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 clarify parameters. The description itself only references 'video_url' implicitly ('public video URL'), and does not explain 'title', 'description', or 'page_id'. The parameter names are self-explanatory somewhat, but the description adds no meaning beyond them. It does not specify that 'page_id' is optional or how it defaults, which is a gap given coverage is zero.

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?

Purpose is stated with a specific verb ('Upload'), a clear resource (video to a Page), and the method/endpoint (POST /{page-id}/videos). This clearly distinguishes from the sibling tools like publish_page_post, upload_page_photo, and graph_api_post. The presence of sibling upload_page_photo contrasts the specific resource. The noun phrase 'a Page' and 'public video URL' make the target precise.

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 use when one wants to upload a video to a Page, but it does not provide explicit context on when to use it versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It does not mention that the video must be publicly accessible online, which is a key constraint. Sibling tools like upload_page_photo are similar, so more differentiation would help, but the verb+resource is clear enough to infer a primary use case.

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