register_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return value (video_id) and does not cover side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or file constraints. This is minimal for a tool that likely stores a file.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant details.

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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema (presumably documenting the return), the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for an agent to call it correctly, especially without annotations.

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 should compensate for the undocumented file_path parameter. It only implies that file_path is the path to the source video, adding no information about format, size limits, or other requirements.

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 the resource 'source video', and specifies its purpose 'for later remuxing', which distinguishes it from the sibling remux_video. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the intent is unambiguous.

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 usage in a remuxing workflow but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are no alternatives mentioned or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over others.

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