rednote_create_video_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the approval-queue behavior, explicitly that nothing is posted, the single-file constraint, accepted formats (MP4/MOV), the 500 MB ceiling, and that RedNote processes the video asynchronously for minutes. It omits auth requirements and what happens after approval is granted.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the most consequential fact (queues, does not post) front-loaded ahead of file constraints. Every clause carries operational value.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behaviors: no immediate posting, async processing, file limits. It could go further by indicating what the caller receives (a queue/approval reference) or pointing at rednote_open_approval_page, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents title, body, topics, and aiGenerated well; the description's contribution is limited to the video parameter's format and size limits, which partly duplicate the schema description. It adds no meaning for topics or the aiGenerated flag.

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 and resource ('Queue a video note') plus the scope ('for human approval'), which cleanly separates it from rednote_create_post, rednote_create_draft, and the other note-reading siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Queue ... for human approval. Does NOT post.' gives clear workflow context for when this tool applies rather than firing a publish action. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. rednote_create_post, rednote_create_draft) or spell out exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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