send_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the video is E2EE encrypted, uses LINE chunked video encryption, sends immediately, and is limited to one send per call. This is good transparency for a mutation tool, though it does not discuss failure modes or side effects.

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 two sentences, each packed with essential information: encryption pipeline, parameter constraints, supported conversation types, and call limit. No word is wasted, and the most critical action is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main usage, parameter constraints, encryption, and limitations. It does not mention return values, but that is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity of filePath and videoBase64, and explaining that durationMs sets the scrubber length. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 tool sends an E2EE video to a LINE conversation using the same pipeline as send_file, with specific mention of encryption and playback integrity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_file and send_image by the video-specific detail and the explicit note about the same pipeline.

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 provides clear usage guidance: provide exactly one of filePath or videoBase64, optional durationMs, works for 1:1/group/room, and one send per call. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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