ingest_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at outputs (metadata and subtitles) but never discloses side effects — whether ingestion persists data, is idempotent, requires authentication, hits network/rate limits, or runs asynchronously (a get_job_status sibling makes that a live question).

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 two-word fragment: technically concise with no filler, but so terse that it is under-specified rather than efficient. There is no front-loaded context to orient the agent before calling.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this short phrase does not carry enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly — URL format, platform enum values, and the effects of ingestion are all missing.

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 both parameters, yet it mentions neither 'url' nor 'platform'. It adds no meaning about accepted URL formats, default 'youtube' behavior, or what other platforms are valid.

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 phrase '攝取元數據 + 字幕' names a specific action (ingest) and specific resources (metadata, subtitles), so the agent understands the general intent. However, 'ingest' is ambiguous — it could mean downloading, parsing, or persisting — and there is no differentiation from siblings such as analyze_video or get_video, which plausibly also touch metadata/subtitles.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus get_video, analyze_video, or list_videos, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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