Publish a video story

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

Annotations already declare the write/open-world/non-idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, and the description usefully adds the internal three-step upload flow (get upload server, upload, save) that an agent should expect. It does not cover auth/scopes, failure/cleanup behavior if the mid-step upload fails, or rate limits, which would push it higher.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the upload mechanism front-loaded before the scoping detail. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a 5-param publish tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers purpose, mechanism and posting target. Only the absence of any error/partial-upload guidance keeps it from 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents video, group_id, link_url/link_text pairing and add_to_news. The description only restates the group_id personal-vs-community behavior already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Publish a video story on VK') and is immediately distinguishable from the sibling vk_stories_post_photo, which handles photos. It also names the mechanism (three-step upload, get server/upload/save), so the agent knows exactly what operation it triggers.

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?

It gives one routing rule – set group_id to post as a community, otherwise it's a personal story – which is real usage context. But it never names the alternative video/media tools or states when NOT to use this (e.g. photo stories or wall posts), leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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