meta_ads_videos_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is mutating and that Meta processes videos asynchronously, which is critical behavioral context. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, file size limits (though schema covers max 4GB), or error handling, leaving some gaps. Still, the async disclosure is valuable.

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, all essential. It starts with the main action and result, then adds crucial details (mutating, async, alternative tool). No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: upload method, return value, async behavior, and alternative. It doesn't explain error cases or prerequisites beyond what's in the schema, but for a straightforward upload it is sufficiently complete.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context: account_id can fall back to an env variable, file_path lists supported formats and size recommendation, and title's purpose in library organization. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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 local file path to the Meta Ads account library, and distinguishes itself from the URL-based sibling meta_ads_videos_upload. It specifies the action (uploads), resource (local video to Meta library), and the outcome (returns video_id).

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 tells when to use this tool (local file path) and when to use the alternative (public URLs -> meta_ads_videos_upload). It also notes the asynchronous processing and the need to wait before attaching to ads, guiding proper usage.

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