upload_video_asset

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

The description discloses validation, upload method, size limit, return of meta_video_id, and post-upload processing. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. Without annotations, this is acceptable but incomplete.

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 well-structured with a concise first paragraph explaining purpose, validation, and post-processing, followed by a clear bullet list of arguments. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers the core workflow: upload, return ID, processing, and follow-up. It documents all parameters. It lacks details on failure modes, prerequisites like account permissions, or what to do if file >1GB, but overall is comprehensive for typical use.

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%, but the description provides detailed parameter meanings: account_id with example, video_path with allowed formats, and title/description as optional. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 file to a Meta ad account, specifies the action ('upload') and resource ('video asset'), and distinguishes from siblings like upload_video_resumable and upload_ad_image by mentioning file size limit and file type constraints.

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 this tool (for files < 1GB via simple upload) and advises using poll_video_processing to check readiness. It implicitly distinguishes from upload_video_resumable by size, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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