dataset_upload_video

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

Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint all false). The description adds value by disclosing the ffmpeg extraction and ingest initiation, but it omits important behavioral details like whether existing frames are replaced or appended, error handling, or resource implications (e.g., disk space usage).

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 sentence of 16 words, efficiently conveying the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It earns a high score for conciseness but a deduction for incomplete structure (no param descriptions, no usage notes).

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate for a tool that performs a multi-step process (ffmpeg extraction then ingest). It does not explain return values, error conditions, required permissions, or how the ingest phase affects the dataset. Missing critical context for correct invocation.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. Three parameters (fps, max_frames, targetSplit) lack descriptions in the schema, and the description offers no additional meaning beyond the schema's sparse info for video_path and dataset. The description repeats 'video' and 'dataset' concepts without elaborating on their format or constraints.

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 tool uploads a local video, extracts JPEG frames using ffmpeg, and starts dataset ingest for an existing dataset. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_upload_file (single file upload) and dataset_upload_folder (folder upload).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions. For example, it does not state that the dataset must already exist or that the video must be a supported format. The description lacks explicit context for selection.

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