meta_ads_videos_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the mutating nature (asset is persisted), async processing by Meta, the need to poll for readiness, supported formats and size limit, and that Meta fetches the URL itself. This gives a comprehensive behavioral picture beyond the basic operation.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mutation/return value, async behavior and polling, and format/alternative guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity. It covers the return value (video_id), async processing and polling, size/format limitations, and provides an alternative for local files. With no output schema, it appropriately explains the expected result and next steps.

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 detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some high-level context (e.g., Meta fetches the URL, returns video_id) but does not need to compensate for missing schema details. The parameter semantics are already fully explained in the input schema.

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 uploads a video from a public HTTPS URL to the Meta Ads account, and specifically distinguishes it from the sibling meta_ads_videos_upload_file by noting that local-file uploads should use that alternative. It also mentions the return of video_id, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 instructs to use meta_ads_videos_upload_file for local files, states that larger files require resumable upload (not yet supported), and directs the user to poll meta_ads_videos_get for status before attaching the video to a creative. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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