Publish a video to TikTok

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the call returns as soon as TikTok accepts the job, long before the post is live, and unaudited apps always produce private posts regardless of the privacy_level argument. It also explains the need to poll get_post_status. These are exactly the kind of non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 dense sentences carry the core purpose, the async behavior, and the privacy caveat. The most important facts are front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description covers the essential runtime behavior: what is returned, how to track the post, and the unaudited-app privacy quirk. It does not mention the required confirm parameter, but that is fully documented in the schema, so this is a minor gap overall.

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?

The input schema already documents 75% of the parameters, so the heavy lifting is done there. The description adds extra value for privacy_level by warning that unaudited apps override whatever value is passed, making every post private. This is a meaningful parameter-related caveat beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a video straight to the account from a public URL.' It also communicates the key output, publish_id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like post_photos or send_video_to_drafts, so the differentiation is implicit.

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 clear context for what the tool does and tells the agent to poll get_post_status afterward, which is useful. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over alternatives such as send_video_to_drafts or post_photos, nor does it explain when not to use it. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly routed.

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