post_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the return format (publish_id), the behavioral difference between upload (drafts) and publish (direct post), and a platform-specific caveat (private until audit passes). This goes beyond a simple action statement, though it omits details like error handling or reversibility.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary action and return value, then the second paragraph explains the modes. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded structure makes the purpose immediately clear.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and mode behavior, but it leaves the majority of parameters unexplained. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It never mentions any parameter (e.g., dry_run, privacy_level, caption) and only vaguely refers to modes without linking them to parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond schema field names.

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 action 'Upload a video to the authorized account' and adds a distinct return value ('Returns a publish_id to poll'), differentiating it from sibling tools like post_status and list_videos. This is a specific verb+resource statement with no ambiguity.

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 context on when to use the tool and the two modes (upload vs. publish), including the audited app requirement for publish mode. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the mode explanation gives practical usage guidance that helps an agent decide how to invoke it.

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