replace_video_creative_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Replace the file' with no mention of side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the old file. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simple action it describes.

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?

The tool has only one parameter (id) yet claims to 'replace the file', leaving unclear how the new file is provided. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the replacement mechanism, making the description incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 100% coverage for its single parameter ('id' described as 'Creative ID'), and the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and identifies the exact resource ('the file on a video creative'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like replace_image_creative_file and replace_audio_creative_file. Even without naming alternatives, the resource type is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_video_creative or replace_audio_creative_file. The description only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice.

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