Subir un clip

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

The single annotation (readOnlyHint=false) only confirms this is a write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: uploads enter asynchronous moderation taking 24-48 hours, so there is no immediate published result and a later ml_clips check is required. It does not cover auth requirements, error modes, 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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the action first, then the validation rules and the moderation caveat. No filler, and the most important constraint (asynchronous 24-48h moderation) is placed last where it will be read before invocation.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema and only one annotation, the description covers the essential operational facts: acceptance criteria, required active state, and the deferred verification step. What remains thin is the return behavior (clip identifier/status) and failure handling, though the ml_clips pointer partially compensates.

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 67%. The description supplies domain constraints for `archivo` (accepted containers, vertical orientation, duration window, resolution floor, size ceiling) that the schema's bare "Ruta local del video" does not, and the "publicación activa" requirement implicitly qualifies `item_id`. Only the optional `cuenta` parameter gets no mention in the description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in the user's domain ("Sube un Clip ... a una publicación") and even defines what a clip is ("video vertical corto"), which removes ambiguity against the many publication-related siblings. It also names ml_clips as the follow-up tool, so the agent can place it precisely in the workflow.

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?

It states the concrete preconditions for successful use (active publicación plus MP4/MOV/MPEG/AVI, vertical, 10-61s, min 360x640, max 280 MB) and tells the agent to verify moderation later with ml_clips. There is no explicit "when not to use" or alternative upload path, but the prerequisites are unusually complete for a tool of this type.

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