meta_ads_videos_upload

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the mutation and persistence, and adds async processing context. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or error cases, which would be helpful for full transparency.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: action and return, mutation and async behavior, alternative usage. No redundant or vague language.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers action, return value role, mutation, async delay, and alternative. It is largely complete, though missing error handling details. Still strong for typical usage.

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% with good descriptions, but the tool description adds extra context: for video_url it specifies supported formats and size limit, and for title it clarifies it's for library organization. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 verb ('Uploads'), resource ('video to the Meta Ads account'), and method (fetching from a public HTTPS URL). It distinguishes from the sibling meta_ads_videos_upload_file by specifying the alternative for local files.

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 explicitly notes it is a mutating action that persists the asset, mentions asynchronous processing and a delay before use, and provides an alternative for local file uploads. However, it does not broadly exclude other use cases or compare to non-video tools.

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