upload_video

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: reads local file, checks quota, uploads with service-auth token, polls processing, returns blob. It also notes caption files over 20 kB are skipped. No contradictions with annotations.

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 reasonably concise given the complexity. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds necessary detail. Could be slightly tighter, but still effective.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description is very complete. It covers authentication, rate limits, quota, processing steps, caption limitations, and usage of the returned blob. With output schema present, no need to explain return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: explains that filePath must be within allowed directory, altText is accessible description, and captions pairs language with WebVTT file, with note that large captions are skipped. This adds value beyond 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 action (upload video to Bluesky) and the resource (app.bsky.video service). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool upload_image, saying 'Use upload_image instead for still images.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (for video files), alternatives (upload_image for stills), and prerequisites (authentication, rate limits). It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use, but the alternative is clearly named.

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