meta_ads_videos_upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is mutating, that Meta processes the video asynchronously, that the upload is limited to 1 GB, and that larger files are not yet supported. It also tells the agent what to do after upload (poll for readiness). It doesn't mention failure modes or whether the upload overwrites existing videos, but for a mutating upload tool with no annotations, this is strong disclosure.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core action and return value, then covers async behavior, format/size limits, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place. It's slightly long, but the information is all relevant and actionable, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 mutating upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, the async processing caveat, the size/format limits, and the alternative for URL uploads. It doesn't describe the exact response shape beyond video_id, but the description explicitly names the return value, so an agent has enough to proceed. A 4 is fair given the complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the returned video_id, the async processing implication, and the file format/size constraints. It also clarifies the account_id fallback behavior ('falls back to META_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID') and the required 'act_' prefix, which goes beyond the schema. This is above the 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 states a specific verb ('Uploads'), a specific resource ('a video from a local file path to the Meta Ads account library'), and the key output ('Returns the video_id'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling meta_ads_videos_upload by noting that tool handles public URLs. This is a clear, specific purpose statement that an agent can act on.

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 says when to use this tool (local file path uploads) and when not to (larger files need resumable upload, not yet supported; use meta_ads_videos_upload for public URLs). It also gives a critical post-upload instruction: poll meta_ads_videos_get until status.video_status reports ready before attaching to a creative. This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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