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 the mutating nature, returns video_id, and explains the asynchronous processing with a required polling step. It also states supported formats and size limits, and mentions an unsupported larger-file path — giving agents a clear behavioral model.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose/returns, async behavior/polling, and formats/alternatives. No filler or redundancy; the content is front-loaded.

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 and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (video_id), the need to poll, file constraints, and the URL-upload alternative. It provides sufficient contextual grounding for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 each parameter (file_path, title, account_id) already described in the schema, including formats and size limits in file_path. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Uploads a video from a local file path to the Meta Ads account library' — a precise verb+resource+method. It explicitly differentiates from the URL-based sibling by stating 'For uploads from public URLs use meta_ads_videos_upload.'

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 names the alternative meta_ads_videos_upload for URL uploads, and instructs to poll meta_ads_videos_get until status ready before attaching to a creative. It also notes a size limitation (1 GB, resumable not supported), signaling when not to use this tool.

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