upload_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that only local files are supported, lists accepted formats, warns that Meli enforces size/duration limits, and explains that API errors are surfaced as-is so the caller can adjust and retry. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or rate limits.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and the returned handle, then constraints. Slightly redundant in restating the accepted extensions already present in the schema, but otherwise every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter upload tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, downstream workflow, format constraints, failure behavior, and return contents (video_id plus id/size/quality info). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single file_path parameter, so the schema already documents the absolute-path requirement and allowed extensions. The description's format list largely repeats the schema's own detail, adding little new meaning beyond the baseline.

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 (upload) plus resource (product video) and target account (seller's Mercado Livre account), and names the concrete artifact produced (video_id). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like upload_picture by specifying video from a local file, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the workflow: upload here, then pass the returned video_id to create_item or update_item to attach it to a listing. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use or point to an image alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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