upload_video_resumable

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses resumable upload, chunking, file types (.mp4 or .mov), default chunk size, and title defaults. Missing return value or error handling details, but covers essential behavior well.

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 with a clear structure: purpose line, usage guidance, then parameter list. Each sentence is necessary and informative, no wasted words.

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 or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It lacks details on return values or post-upload steps, but the sibling poll_video_processing tool may handle that.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: account_id, video_path, title (with default), and chunk_size_mb (with default). This adds significant value beyond the schema types.

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 it uploads a video file using resumable upload, specifying support for files >100MB up to 4GB. It explicitly distinguishes itself from upload_video_asset, making its purpose specific and 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?

The description directly advises to use this tool for large files that fail with upload_video_asset, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the automatic chunking and sequential upload behavior.

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