Bunny.net MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. The mention of 'chapters' and 'moments' hints at additional functionality beyond the schema, but this is vague.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating required vs. optional parameters or adding usage context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, side effects), doesn't fully explain the hinted 'chapters' and 'moments' beyond the schema, and provides no output information, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 schema documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by listing 'title, collection, chapters, moments' which partially maps to parameters (title, collectionId) and hints at unschema'd aspects (chapters, moments). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('video properties') with specific fields mentioned (title, collection, chapters, moments). It distinguishes from siblings like stream_create_video (creation) and stream_delete_video (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from stream_reencode_video or stream_set_thumbnail which modify different aspects.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing video), exclusions, or compare to siblings like stream_reencode_video for content changes or stream_set_thumbnail for image updates.

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