Upload script audio (mp3 narration)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions asynchronous processing of uploads and advises retrying if video creation fails, which is valuable context. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or file size constraints.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details while including critical usage guidance. Could be slightly more structured but is not verbose.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description provides most needed context: what to do with the returned ID and the async nature. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 already documents the two parameters (filePath and url). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond explaining they are alternative ways to provide the file. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: upload pre-recorded narration audio (mp3 only) to be used instead of text-to-speech. It explains the usage flow (pass the returned ID as scriptAudioId in create_video), distinguishing it from generic asset uploads like upload_asset.

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 specifies when to use the tool (when pre-recorded audio is available instead of TTS) and provides a key usage note about asynchronous processing and retrying on failure. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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