upload_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return format ({"id": "<video_id>"}), the upload method (multipart), and the file type (.mp4 or similar). Missing details include authentication requirements, rate limits, and error handling. 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 concise, using two main sentences plus a brief note on chunked uploads. It front-loads the purpose and return value, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema is mentioned, the description covers the core function, return format, and a key behavioral trait. Missing details about the optional parameters are minor given their likely inferred purpose (name and account_id). Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description adds meaning for the required 'file_path' parameter, explaining it must be an absolute path to an .mp4 file. However, it does not document the optional 'name' and 'account_id' parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 verb (upload) and resource (local video file to ad account), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying its return value and its role in creating ad creatives. No other sibling tool performs upload, so uniqueness is clear.

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 explains when to use the tool (uploading a local video file) and notes the limitation that it does a straight multipart upload, implying it may not be optimal for very large files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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