katto_publish_clip

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

Beyond the provided annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: posts PUBLICLY on the user's behalf, cannot be undone from Katto, each call produces a new post, and blind retries are dangerous. It also documents error handling (platform_not_connected with connect_url) and TikTok-specific constraints (privacy_level required, audit-related private-account limitation).

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 front-loaded with the core action and platform list, then progresses to prerequisites, safety warnings, error handling, and platform-specific details. Every sentence contributes meaningfully to safe and correct invocation, and the structure is logical despite the length. Nothing appears redundant or wasteful.

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 high-stakes, destructive, and open-world nature, the description covers all necessary context: when to call, safety requirements, error recovery, platform-specific rules, plan limits, and even return shapes. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return payloads for published and scheduled outcomes. An agent has enough information to use the tool correctly and responsibly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters in detail, including defaults and platform-specific fields. The description adds some contextual constraints (schedule_at max 7 days, TikTok privacy_level must be user-chosen, brand content disclosure), but these largely overlap with the schema. With the schema carrying the parameter burden, 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a finished clip to one of the user's connected social accounts', and enumerates the supported platforms. It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like katto_create_clip_job, katto_generate_post_text, and katto_list_connected_accounts by focusing on the publish step. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call katto_list_connected_accounts first, optionally use katto_generate_post_text, and require explicit user confirmation before publishing. It also states when-not-to-use in strong terms: 'never publish on your own initiative or retry a publish blindly (each call is a new post)'. Prerequisites such as paid plan and Creator-only scheduling are explicitly noted.

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