meta_ads_videos_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description discloses mutation ('Mutating'), async behavior, and that the title is optional and for library organization. It could further clarify error handling (e.g., file not found) but provides sufficient behavioral context.

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?

Very concise: four short sentences total, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 file upload tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage alternative, async nature, and key return value. Lacks error handling details but is largely 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% but description adds meaning: account_id fallback to env var, file_path format and size limits, title's non-ad usage. This goes beyond the schema, improving agent understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'uploads', the resource 'video from a local file path to the Meta Ads account library', and the result 'returns the video_id'. It also distinguishes from sibling tool meta_ads_videos_upload by specifying the upload source (local file vs URL).

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 tells when to use the sibling tool ('For uploads from public URLs use meta_ads_videos_upload') and notes asynchronous processing ('allow a few minutes before attaching'). However, it does not mention prerequisites like file access permissions or account setup.

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