video_relate_product

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's idempotency statement merely reinforces that. The genuinely new behavioral content is the auto-conversion of numeric ids into the encrypted form the API expects, which is not covered by any annotation and materially affects how callers pass ids.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the target semantics and id conversion. Minimal waste, though the idempotency clause partly duplicates the annotation.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains is a simple associate operation, and the description covers the non-obvious pieces (target values, id conversion); only account_key's role is left unaddressed.

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 0% and target has no enum in the schema, so the description's enumeration of 'main' (main-image video) and 'detail' (detail video) adds real semantic value. However, video_id, product_id, and especially account_key (default "") remain unexplained, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Associate a video with a product'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling read tools video_list_related and video_query. It never explicitly names those siblings or defines boundaries against them, so sibling differentiation is present only by implication.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as video_list_related for verification. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement itself.

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