publish_page_video_from_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety/behavior burden. It adds real behavioral detail: the upload goes directly to {page_id}/videos, unpublished videos don't appear in the feed, and Meta executes scheduled publishing. However, it omits auth/permission prerequisites, upload size/format limits, and side effects of the unpublished draft flow, which is material for a mutation with no annotation safety hints.

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 text is compact and front-loaded: core purpose in the first sentence, then endpoint and behavior, then optional-parameter semantics. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 publish tool, it covers the key invocation details, optional parameters, and scheduling constraints; the output schema exists so return format need not be restated. The main gap is environment-level context such as required permissions or upload constraints, but the core usage story is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining description as caption, published=False semantics, and scheduled_publish_time as Unix UTC with a 10-minute-to-6-month window. The required page_id and file_path are only named, but those are self-evident from their names.

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 a specific action and resource: publishing a video to a Facebook Page from a local file. It further distinguishes itself from photo/carousel/Instagram siblings via 'vidéo' + 'Page Facebook' + 'fichier local'.

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?

It gives concrete invocation contexts: direct multipart upload, published=False for pre-publication or feeding an Instagram Reel, and scheduled_publish_time for future publishing. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a full routing guide.

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