app_asset_library_videos_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about authentication requirements, what the create operation returns, whether the video is uploaded separately or linked via relationships, or any side effects. A raw REST path plus a schema pointer is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short, but it wastes space by repeating the same path twice ('POST /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos (POST /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos)') and adds no real information. It is brief but not efficient.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint with a nested request body, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description defers all body detail to an external OpenAPI document the agent may not have access to. It omits the context an agent needs to construct a valid JSON:API create request.

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%, and the single body parameter is documented in the schema as a JSON:API envelope of type AppAssetLibraryVideoCreateRequest. The description merely repeats the schema pointer without adding any field-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 states the HTTP method and path (POST /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos) and the request schema name AppAssetLibraryVideoCreateRequest, which together imply the resource being created. However, it never states in plain language what creating an app asset library video accomplishes or how it differs from the many sibling create_instance tools. Purpose is only inferable from the name and schema reference, not articulated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as app_asset_library_videos_update_instance or the image counterparts. The agent must infer usage entirely from the endpoint path and resource name.

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