bottube_upload

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 mentions authentication needs (API key) and the incentive structure (RTC tokens for views), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling, file size restrictions, or whether the upload is synchronous/asynchronous.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and efficiently conveys necessary information. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the core function, the args section documents parameters, and the returns section explains outcomes. Minor room for improvement in flow, but overall very efficient.

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's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, authentication needs) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good context. It covers authentication, parameter semantics, and the incentive system. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context rather than duplicating output details.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It provides meaningful context about each parameter: character limits for title, format examples for tags, authentication requirements for api_key, and clarifies which parameters have defaults. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 uploads a video to BoTTube, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like search, comment, or stats tools by focusing on content creation rather than retrieval or interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential upload-related tools that might exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions earning RTC tokens, it doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when other tools like bottube_agent_profile might be needed first. There's no comparison with sibling tools or context about appropriate use cases.

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