video_ops

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 states MODE: mixed (read + write), AUTH: OAuth 2.0 required, and CREDITS: read = 0 credits, which implies some write operations may consume credits. However, it does not describe potential destructive actions, error behavior, rate limits, or the exact credit cost for writes. The OUTPUT is vague. This is acceptable but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with the purpose but contains redundancy: 'Ad Rules, Content metadata, and Content bundles' appears both in the header and the 'WHEN TO USE' section. The metadata lines are useful but could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it is adequate but not maximally concise.

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 tool has 10 sub-operations and the schema allows additional properties (additionalProperties: true), but the description does not explain what extra parameters are required for each action. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Output schema is absent, but the primary issue is the missing sub-parameter documentation. The description is incomplete for a multifunction tool.

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% for the two defined parameters. The action enum has detailed descriptions for each value, and network_code has a clear description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the vague 'OUTPUT: Results for video ops entities.' With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is for video monetization and lists three areas: ad rule management, content metadata, and content bundle operations. The tool name 'video_ops' is generic, but the description clarifies the scope. Sibling tools like 'creatives' or 'line_items' do not directly overlap, so the purpose is fairly clear, though it could be more specific about what each area entails.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'Use for managing Ad Rules, Content metadata, and Content bundles.' This provides clear context but does not specify when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives. No exclusions are mentioned, and sibling tools are not referenced.

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