Send a video to the TikTok inbox

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals meaningful behavioral details: the creator receives a notification, nothing goes public, the auth scope is only video.upload, and TikTok enforces a 5-draft-per-24-hour limit. These are exactly the kind of side-effect, permission, and rate-limit facts that help an agent predict tool behavior. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=false annotations.

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 earning its place: core behavior first, then the notification/privacy consequence, then the auth and quota constraints. No filler or repetition of schema details. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, auth needs, quota, URL verification, and the draft-not-public outcome, which is nearly complete for a two-parameter tool. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the API response or what happens when the 24-hour draft limit is exceeded. Still, an agent has enough to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have thorough descriptions in the schema, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description's reference to video.upload is a permission scope, not parameter-level semantics. The schema carries the burden adequately, 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 the specific action: 'Send a video to the account's TikTok inbox instead of publishing it.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and a distinctive contrast to publishing, which separates it from siblings like post_video. The 'so nothing goes public without them' detail reinforces exactly what this tool achieves.

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 a concrete usage context: this is 'the path that works before your app passes the Content Posting audit' and requires only video.upload. The 'instead of publishing it' phrasing implies the alternative is a publishing tool, but it never explicitly names post_video or states when not to use this tool. Strong context, but the alternative is not made fully explicit.

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