supportpages_create_video_walkthrough

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is durable/async ('returns a durable operation'), uses project voice/settings, and the output is private until explicitly shared. It does not explain why destructiveHint=true or what state the call affects, but the safety profile is already declared by annotations.

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?

Three sentences, action front-loaded, with the eligibility condition and privacy behavior following logically. Slightly dense in the trailing 'never publish, share or record locally' clause, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with 17% schema coverage, the description leaves too much parameter and side-effect context unstated to be fully complete.

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 only 17% (only request_id documented), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the article concept via 'eligible article' and at project settings, but open_when_ready, expected_revision, prefer_background and workspace receive no added semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and a precise resource ('hosted video walkthrough'), and narrows scope with the qualifying condition 'for a completed eligible article'. This is cleanly distinguishable from sibling read tools such as supportpages_list_walkthroughs and supportpages_get_walkthrough by verb and from supportpages_create_article by resource.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('a completed eligible article') and a when-not directive ('never publish, share or record locally'). It does not name alternative tools (e.g. get_walkthrough for playback), so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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