douyin_queue_run

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety profile alone. It still adds real context beyond them: browser automation as the transport, format/size rejection rules, and the 'accept only user-confirmed, non-sensitive videos' policy constraint. It does not describe what happens on a partial or failed upload, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and formats, then prerequisites, then sibling routing — no filler. The only blemish is the dangling mention of title/caption, which is a precision problem rather than verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally would say something about return values, and it is silent on auth/session state and failure handling. For a single-required-parameter upload with rich annotations, though, the format limits, prerequisite, and sibling preference cover the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already explains `bytes` and `cover_image`. The description only restates the schema-based requirements and even references 'title and/or caption' parameters that do not exist in this input schema, which adds confusion rather than meaning.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Upload video file ... to Douyin') and immediately qualifies it with formats and limits (mp4/mov, ≤4GB), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also names the near-duplicate sibling publish_video and the distinction between them.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Use after user confirms all metadata') and an explicit alternative ('prefer douyin_management__publish_video which handles upload and creation together'). What is missing is guidance on when *not* to upload at all, and any precondition about being logged in, but the routing advice is genuinely actionable.

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