upload_ad_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the local-file precondition but says nothing about permissions, upload size/duration limits, processing latency, or what happens on repeated uploads of the same file.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the one critical constraint. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, a mutation/upload tool with a required filesystem precondition should do much more: auth requirements, size limits, and the meaning of the three optional params are all absent.

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% across 4 parameters. The description adds meaning only for video_file_path (must exist locally), leaving title, description, and ad_account_id entirely undocumented in both schema and description. It partially compensates but leaves a real gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('Upload a local video file') and the target ('to the ad account'), which distinguishes it from sibling upload_ad_image. It does not name or differentiate from create_ad_video_creative, which also produces a video asset, so it falls short of a 5.

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 note that the file must exist on this machine implies a usage precondition but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like create_ad_video_creative.

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