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

Annotations already establish the profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds a genuinely useful constraint beyond that: Vimeo rejects two chapters on the same second, a real failure mode not present in the schema or annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second carries only the critical constraint needed to call the tool successfully.

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 simple three-parameter create operation, the essentials are covered: purpose, required parameters, and the key API constraint. The only gap is the response shape — specifically the created chapter's ID needed for later update/delete — which matters because there is no output schema.

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 all three parameters (video_id, timecode_seconds, title) already carry meaningful descriptions. The tool description reinforces the timecode concept but adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Add a chapter marker at a timecode." This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_chapters, update_chapter, and delete_chapter without ambiguity.

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 provides concrete operational context, notably the transcript-generation scenario and the requirement that timecodes be distinct to avoid Vimeo's duplicate-second rejection. It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as update_chapter for modifying existing chapters, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the comment is publicly visible to anyone who can see the video, it reaches other people, it requires a specific OAuth scope, and it requires the confirm flag to be set true. This goes well beyond the simple readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations and warns the agent that this is a consequential, non-idempotent public action.

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 short sentences cover purpose, visibility, scope, and confirmation requirement with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded: what the tool does, then why it matters, then what is required to call it.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the action, the identity used, the public visibility consequence, the required scope, and the required confirmation. The annotations further cover the read-only/destructive/idempotency profile, and sibling names clarify the surrounding comment-management operations.

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 video_id, text, and confirm. The description adds value by stating 'Requires confirm: true,' which clarifies that the agent must set confirm to true for the action to proceed, supplementing the schema's default false. It also emphasizes the public visibility that makes confirm necessary.

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: 'Post a comment on a video.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edit_comment, delete_comment, and list_comments by describing the create action rather than modifying, removing, or viewing comments. The phrase 'as you' also clarifies the identity model (the authenticated user), making the purpose more precise.

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 usage context: this tool posts a publicly visible comment, so it should be used when the agent intends to create a visible interaction on a video. It also states practical preconditions: 'Needs the interact scope' and 'Requires confirm: true.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the create-vs-manage distinction from sibling names is strong enough to guide selection.

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

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: a video lives in one folder at a time, so the operation moves rather than copies. This clarifies a non-obvious consequence of the call. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so no contradiction exists.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action, then add efficiency guidance and the critical move-not-copy caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs to know: batch operation, move semantics, and efficient usage. There is no output schema, but the absence of return-value details is acceptable given the operation's simplicity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including the destination folder id and the list of video ids with a max of 100. The description reinforces the batch usage but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Add one or many videos to a folder in a single call.' It also distinguishes itself by explaining the move-not-copy behavior, which differentiates it from related tools like remove_videos_from_folder.

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 usage context, recommending it for filing a back catalog efficiently and advising to pass the whole list rather than calling once per video. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds valuable context: the video stays in the library and is not moved, and the reason for the one-at-a-time design is spelled out. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, though it doesn't address edge cases like duplicate additions or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core operation, a critical non-move side-effect note, and an explicit usage instruction with reasoning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important constraint 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?

For a low-complexity tool with two straightforward parameters and supportive annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what the operation does, what it does not do, and how to call it correctly. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 has 100% coverage with 'Video id to add' and 'Showcase id,' so the description doesn't need to explain parameters further. It adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Add one video to a showcase,' which states a specific verb, resource, and the 'one' constraint that distinguishes it from any bulk operation. It clearly differentiates from the bulk showcase endpoint and from sibling tools like add_videos_to_folder by scoping to a single video and a single showcase.

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 explicitly says 'Call this once per video' and explains why the bulk endpoint is not exposed because it replaces the whole contents rather than appending. This gives direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving no ambiguity about calling frequency.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the tool has no effect unless the embed privacy is set to whiteliist, and it directs the agent to update_video first. That is the kind of operational detail agents need.

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?

Two concise sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the crucial dependency is stated immediately after. Every sentence contributes.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with complete schema descriptions and idempotentHint, the description provides the essential prerequisite and points to the right sibling. It could mention what happens if privacy isn't whitelist, but the current wording conveys that it only takes effect then. Enough for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so video_id and domain are both fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the domain and video generally, which the schema already covers.

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 states a specific action—'Allow a specific domain to embed a video'—with a clear verb, resource, and object. It also adds the key condition about the whitelist, which distinguishes it from broader embed-related tools like apply_embed_preset.

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 explicitly gives a precondition: 'This only takes effect when the video's embed privacy is set to whiteliist' and points to the sibling tool update_video. It does not discuss alternatives for adding multiple domains, but the primary sequencing guidance is clear.

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

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

Annotations convey that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent operation. The description adds the branding outcome but doesn't disclose whether existing player settings are fully replaced or what side effects occur. It doesn't contradict 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?

One sentence with no wasted words. The action and outcome are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

With two required parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering idempotency and mutation, the description plus schema are enough for a competent agent to invoke the tool. It could hint at listing presets first, but the schema already does that.

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%, with video_id and preset_id already clearly documented (including that preset_id comes from list_embed_presets). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Apply' with the resource 'saved embed preset' and the target 'a video'. The purpose clause 'so its player matches your branding' makes the tool's intent concrete. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_video_thumbnail or update_video.

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 a clear context: you apply a saved embed preset to a video when you want its player to match your branding. It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for this exact task, so the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a useful auth context by stating 'Needs the create scope', which is not present in annotations. This is a meaningful behavioral precondition for invoking the tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the permission note is a single economical addition. Every word 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 one parameter fully described in the schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is mostly complete. It could mention response behavior or duplicate-name handling, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation keep this from being a serious gap.

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%: the only parameter 'name' is described as 'Folder name.' The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a folder') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders, get_folder, update_folder, and delete_folder. The action is unambiguous and the target resource is explicit.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to create a folder) but gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. With many folder-related siblings, naming update_folder or delete_folder as alternatives would have strengthened it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: it requires the 'create' OAuth scope. It does not describe response shape or side effects beyond creation, but it makes a modest contribution beyond the 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, and the auth prerequisite is the only additional sentence. Every word earns its place for a tool of this simplicity.

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 schema and annotations carry most of the load, covering all parameters and the safety profile. With no output schema, the description does not indicate what a successful call returns (such as the created showcase or an ID), and it does not mention the privay/password conditional, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for that logic.

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 80%, and the schema already documents name, sort, privay, password, and the conditional requirement that password is needed when privay is 'password'. The description contributes no additional parameter-level meaning, so it hovers at the baseline for a high-coverage 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 states the action and resource explicitly ('Create a showcase'), making it distinct from the many sibling tools such as update_showcase, delete_showcase, and list_showcases. However, it adds no detail beyond what the tool name already conveys, so it is clear but minimal.

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 verb 'Create' implies when to use the tool, and 'Needs the create scope' provides a concrete prerequisite for invocation. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_showcase or add_video_to_showcase, nor states when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'Requires confirm: true' and clarifying that the video is untouched. This is useful because the annotations mark the operation as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description reassures that the destructive effect is limited to the chapter marker.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical confirmation requirement is stated immediately after. 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 simple deletion tool with two required ID parameters and a confirm flag, the description covers the essential behavioral requirements. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not expected. Irreversibility could be mentioned, but the destructive annotation and confirm requirement already convey this.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explicitly noting that confirm must be set to true, reinforcing the schema's default of false. It does not add further detail on video_id or chapter_id, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one chapter marker.' It clearly distinguishes this from deleting videos, comments, or text tracks, and clarifies the video itself is untouched.

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 communicates exactly when to use this tool: when deleting a single chapter marker. The 'video is untouched' note helps the agent understand scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no direct sibling alternative exists for deleting chapters.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with that by saying it deletes a comment. It adds a confirmation gate, though that is already present in the schema, and it does not disclose additional consequences such as irreversibility or cascading effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and the critical confirmation requirement stated immediately after. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 simple destructive operation with two required IDs plus a confirmation flag, the annotations, schema, and description together provide enough information for an agent to invoke it safely. It does not describe return values or further side effects, but no output schema exists and the destructive annotation covers the primary risk.

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 video_id, comment_id, and confirm are already documented. The description only repeats the confirmation requirement and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a clear verb and resource: deleting a comment from a video, which distinguishes it from siblings like add_comment, edit_comment, and delete_video. The confirmation requirement adds useful operational context without confusing the purpose.

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 provides the key prerequisite 'Requires confirm: true', which is essential for calling the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_comment or list_comments, so usage is only implied.

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

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the default behavior that videos survive and return to the main library, and it calls out the required delete scope. It also reinforces the confirm requirement, which is useful safety context not fully captured by annotations alone.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool does, the default outcome for videos, and the required permission and confirmation flag. No wasted words and the main action 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?

For a destructive delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, safety default, permission requirement, and confirmation mandate. It does not explain the irreversible nature when delete_videos_too is true, but the parameter schema already documents that, so the description is sufficiently 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical context around confirm and the default behavior of delete_videos_too, but it does not substantially expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Delete a folder,' which is a specific verb and resource, and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like delete_video and delete_showcase. It also adds meaningful scope by noting videos survive by default, making the tool's purpose more precise.

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 operational context: it requires the delete scope and explain that confirm must be true. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_folder or remove_videos_from_folder, but the tool's purpose is straightforward enough that a capable agent can infer when to use it.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description goes further by spelling out what is destroyed (showcase order and branding), what is preserved (videos), and the safety requirement (confirmation). This adds meaningful context beyond the annotation flags and contains no contradictions.

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 carrying distinct information: the core action, the non-destructive effect on videos, and the required scope/confirmation. The most important fact is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential operational details: side effects, scope requirement, and confirmation requirement. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and how to call 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%, so the description does not need to document parameters. The mention of 'Requires confirm: true' reinforces the schema's instruction but does not add new meaning beyond what the confirm property already states.

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 states a specific action ('Delete a showcase') and clarifies the exact scope: videos inside remain in the library, only the curated order and branding are removed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_video or remove_video_from_showcase.

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 provides concrete invocation guidance: the delete scope is required and confirm must be true. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the behavioral clarification about videos not being deleted effectively implies when this tool should and should not be used.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered by structured data. The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is meaningful behavioral guidance beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on permanence or side effects; given the existing destructive hint, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and object, then states the required confirmation flag. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of schema properties.

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 simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description, annotations, and fully documented parameters together provide everything needed to invoke it correctly. It names what is deleted, where it is deleted from, and the required confirmation. No critical context is missing.

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 schema has 100% description coverage: video_id, track_id, and confirm all have descriptions. The tool description adds no significant parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. The confirmation statement aligns with the schema's confirm parameter but does not add new semantic value.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Delete a caption track from a video.' It names the resource (caption/text track) and the containing object (video), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_video, delete_chapter, or delete_comment. This is not a tautology and leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a caption track on a video should be removed. It also provides an important usage precondition: 'Requires confirm: true.' It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but no sibling tool duplicates this exact caption-track deletion function, so the context is sufficient.

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

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is irreversible because the source file is removed, every embed breaks, and Vimeo keeps no copy to restore from. It also flags the authorization requirement (delete scope) that many tokens do not have. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences, each conveying a distinct fact: the action, the irreversible consequences, the authorization need, and the mandatory flag. There is no filler or repetition of the schema. 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?

The description covers the operation's irreversible effects, prerequisite scope, and mandatory confirmation flag, which is sufficient given the destructive annotations and full schema coverage. It also differentiates from the delete/remove siblings. No output schema exists, so the lack of return-value detail is not a gap.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, with confirm's default and 'set true to proceed' and video_id's role. The description reinforces confirm usage with 'Requires confirm: true' but adds no new parameter-level meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description meets the baseline and slightly reinforces the confirm parameter.

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 'Permanently delete a video,' naming the resource and the irreversible nature. It further clarifies scope by mentioning removal of the source file, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_video_from_showcase that only affect collection membership. This leaves no doubt about which operation is offered.

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 conveys clear conditions: requires the delete scope, which many tokens lack, and demands confirm: true. This tells an agent when the tool is usable and what prerequisites exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the consequence 'breaks every embed' implies this is the full-delete tool rather than a removal-from-collection tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description need not re-state safety. It adds the behavioral constraint about ownership, which is useful context beyond the schema. No mention of failure modes or side effects, but annotations cover the key behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the restriction follows in the second sentence.

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 simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters and annotations indicating idempotence and non-destructive behavior, the description covers the key usage constraints. It does not describe the return value, but with no output schema and straightforward edit semantics, that is a minor gap.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for text, video_id, and comment_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it doesn't explain what 'replacement text' means beyond the schema's own description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('one of your own comments'), immediately distinguishing this from delete_comment and add_comment. The clarifying restriction 'You cannot edit someone else's' reinforces the scope and differentiates it from a generic edit tool.

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 clearly states the tool is for editing your own comments, and warns that editing someone else's is not allowed. However, it does not name alternatives such as delete_comment or list_comments, so the agent is left to infer when exactly to choose this over siblings. This is sufficient context but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the required video_files scope, that links are signed, and that they expire within a few hours. It also highlights that this is the sole retrieval path for original files. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the scope requirement and expiration behavior, then the strategic note about being the only way to retrieve an original file. 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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, required scope, signed-expiring URL behavior, and the uniqueness of the operation. An agent has everything needed to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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 schema already documents the single parameter video_id as 'Video id,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with one simple required parameter and full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get direct download URLs for a video's source and rendered files.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the only way to retrieve an original file through the API,' so an agent can tell it apart from get_video or other read tools.

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 prerequisites ('Needs the video_files scope, which is off by default') and a clear selection signal ('This is the only way to retrieve an original file through the API'). It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the uniqueness claim provides strong usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('one folder' + 'videos inside it') but fails to disclose that include_videos can be set to false or that per_page caps the returned videos at 50/100. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no waste. Every word 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 read-only single-folder getter with annotations covering safety, the core behavior is stated, but the description is silent on video list pagination (per_page) and the ability to exclude videos via include_videos=false. Since no output schema exists, an agent cannot know the shape of 'details' or that the video list is paginated.

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 67% and both folder_id and include_videos have descriptions; per_page is self-explanatory with min/max/default. The description reinforces include_videos but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('folder'), and scope ('one'), effectively distinguishing it from list_folders and other folder tools. It also captures the key behavior of including videos, which is central to the tool's purpose.

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?

While 'one folder' implies a single-item retrieval as opposed to list_folders, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'use list_folders to browse'). No explicit usage guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that it reports plan, upload quota, and the scopes held by the token, which informs the agent about auth-related visibility. No contradiction with 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?

One compact sentence front-loads the verb and resource while appending the key returned fields. Every word contributes meaningful information; no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 zero-parameter, read-only account lookup with rich annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the connection context, and the specific return fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers this dimension. The description compensates by saying what the result includes, which is helpful given there is no output 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show the Vimeo account this server is connected to' and lists the exact information returned. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling get_* tools, which target folders, videos, and showcases rather than account-level connection info.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving the current connected account and token context. There is no obvious sibling alternative for account-level data, so explicit exclusions are not necessary, but the description does not explicitly state 'use this when you need account details or token scopes'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds one behavioral fact — videos are returned in curated order — but does not disclose pagination behavior or what happens when include_videos is false. No contradiction.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filer: the verb, resource, and distinguishing detail (curated order) all appear immediately. Every word 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?

With no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description must bear more weight. The semantics of include_videos and per_page, and the response shape, are left entirely to inference, making the definition incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33% (showcase_id alone has a description); per_page and include_videos are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter context at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving one showcase plus the videos contained in it. The singular 'one' and the video-ordering detail implicitly differentiate it from siblings like list_showcases and get_folder, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between this and list_showcases for fetching showcase content, nor any indication of prerequisites or context.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the transformation behavior: the text format strips cue numbers and timestamps, while 'vtt' keeps timings. This helps the agent predict exactly what will be returned, though it does not cover edge cases like missing tracks or invalid language codes.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the output transformation and use case, and the third gives the format-switching instruction. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 read-only, single-resource fetch tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it states what the tool returns, how to request the alternative format, and how track selection works. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit more meaning by framing the 'text' format as the summarized/repurposable output and explicitly tying 'vtt' to retaining timings. It also reinforces the language/active-track behavior, giving the agent a clearer mental model than the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get a video's transcript as plain readable text.' It also clarifies the output form ('words only, with cue numbers and timestamps stripped') and the track-selection behavior, which sets it apart from track-management siblings like list_texttracks and delete_texttrack. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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?

Provides clear intended-use context: 'which is what you want for summarizing or repurposing.' It also tells the agent to use format 'vtt' when timings must be preserved. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing the expected return payload fields, which is especially useful since there is no output schema. It does not mention error conditions or auth requirements, but for a read-only single-resource get, the field list is meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the operation and resource, then uses a colon and comma-separated list to compactly convey the key return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, indicates singular scope, and lists the important result fields. The annotations cover the safety dimensions, so no additional behavioral caveats are strictly needed.

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 the sole parameter video_id with 100% coverage, including acceptable formats (numeric id, /videos/ URI, or vimeo.com URL). The description only reinforces that this identifies the video to fetch and does not add new param-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the full details of one video') and enumerates the key fields returned: description, embed URL, thumbnail, privacy, tags, and transcode status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_videos, search_videos, get_video_stats, and get_video_privacy by emphasizing a single video's full detail set.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a caller has a single video_id and wants its details. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_videos or search_videos, nor does it state when not to use it, so usage guidance is present only by implication.

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

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and non-destructive, so those are covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is backed by Vimeo's reporting API, it requires a paid plan, and a free account returns an explanatory message rather than a hard error. That addition is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and main outputs; the second and third add the paid-plan caveat and free-account behavior. No wasted words, and the most decision-relevant information 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?

For a read-only analytics tool with a fully documented parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the paid-plan requirement, and the free-account behavior. It does not detail return format or pagination, but given the output schema is absent and the tool is a getter, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to call 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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but it does not need to. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Get real analytics for a video') and identifies the resource (video analytics) with exactly what data is returned: views over time, unique viewers, finish rate, and traffic sources. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_video or get_video_stats because it describes the reporting-specific scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent when this tool is relevant (reporting/analytics data) and gives important usage context: it relies on Vimeo's reporting API and requires a paid plan. It also discloses what happens on a free account—a plain explanation rather than an error—so the agent can set expectations and avoid misinterpreting the response. This is strong usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the response covers: watch permissions, embed permissions, and the domain whitelist when embedding is restricted. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a key caveat about the domain whitelist. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what information is returned: watch access, embed access, and the domain whitelist. It could additionally clarify the exact privacy level values, but the statement 'exactly who can watch and embed' is strong enough for an agent to invoke 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 the single video_id parameter is self-explanatory as 'Video id.' The description does not add deeper semantics about the parameter, but none are needed given the schema already fully documents it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('who can watch and embed a video'), and goes beyond a generic 'get privacy' by naming the domain whitelist detail. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_video and list_videos.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving video privacy and embedding restrictions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_video or update_video. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the intended use case is reasonably inferable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (lifetime statistics) and plan availability, but it does not describe return shape, limits, or error behavior; that gap is acceptable given the annotations but not additive enough for a higher score.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The result set is front-loaded, then the plan constraint, then the sibling routing; every clause adds information.

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 one-parameter, read-only stats tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, plan eligibility, and the relevant alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%: video_id is already described as 'Video id.' The description adds no additional format, example, or source guidance for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Get a video's lifetime play count plus its comment and like totals.' It explicitly names what data is returned and differentiates from get_video_analytics by naming the time-series/geography features that belong to the sibling.

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 direct routing rule: use get_video_analytics for views over time, finish rate, and geography. It also notes this tool works on every plan while the alternative needs a paid plan, so an agent can select correctly without opening the sibling's schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: chapters are returned in timecode order and appear as segments on the player scrubber. It does not discuss pagination or return shape, but that is less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and ordering constraint are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant context about how chapters are presented. Every word 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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the resource, the ordering, and the player-visibility context. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the returned chapter fields, but the absence of an output schema makes a brief note about the response shape a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.

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% for the single parameter, video_id, described simply as 'Video id.' The tool description clarifies that the video's chapters are being listed, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('a video's chapters'), and an organizing constraint ('in timecode order'). This clearly distinguishes list_chapters from sibling mutation tools like add_chapter, update_chapter, and delete_chapter.

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 clearly implies read-only retrieval of chapters, and the sibling tools make the contrast with chapter mutations obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any conditions, such as 'use this when you need the full ordered chapter list.'

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds critical context by warning that comment text is untrusted and should be summarized, never acted upon. This goes beyond annotation-provided information and is directly useful for agent behavior, earning a 4.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the important security note follows naturally. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is appropriately compact for a straightforward list operation.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide some indication of return structure. It does mention that comments are returned and that the text is untrusted, but it omits details about pagination, ordering, or the shape of the response. Given the schema covers parameter constraints, the description is largely adequate but leaves out return-format specifics.

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 low at 25%, with only video_id having a description. The tool description does not explain any parameters such as page, per_page, or direction, instead focusing solely on the untrusted nature of the comments. Since the schema leaves most parameters undocumented, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'comments on a video,' which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment, edit_comment, and delete_comment. It also stands apart from other list tools by specifying the target resource, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of specific conditions, exclusions, or instructions for choosing a different tool in scenarios that might involve comments. The description only states what the tool does, leaving when to use it entirely implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what presets control, but it does not disclose additional operational behavior such as whether results are paginated or what fields the preset list contains.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a clarifying clause about what the presets do. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only list operation with zero required parameters, the description plus annotations cover most of what an agent needs. However, with no output schema and no mention that per_page controls pagination, the agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape without relying on convention.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the per_page parameter, but it does not mention pagination at all. The parameter name and numeric constraints in the schema hint at its meaning, but the description itself adds no value beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('your saved embed presets'), and explains what those presets affect ('player colors, controls and branding'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling apply_embed_preset because it describes listing rather than applying.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since the sibling list includes apply_embed_preset, the agent would benefit from a note like 'use this to browse presets before applying one,' but no such routing or exclusion is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating that each folder appears with a video count and that the API term is 'projects'. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is one sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the action, the resource, the output detail, and the API terminology note. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description plus rich annotations cover the essential behavior and safety. It lacks explicit pagination/return-shape details and usage guidance, but the tool is low complexity and the schema provides defaults and constraints.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. The schema exposes page, sort, per_page, and direction with types/defaults/enums, but the description does not clarify their semantics or how they affect the result. The description must compensate for low schema coverage and does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('your Vimeo folders'), and names the output value ('video count for each'). It also clarifies that folders are called 'projects' in the API, which is useful. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_folder, but the list/get distinction is reasonably evident from the verb and resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_folder, create_folder, or other folder-related tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful conceptual context by translating the domain term 'showcases' to 'albums' and describing them as curated playlists with their own pages, which helps agents understand what they are operating on.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds valuable clarifying context. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, read-only list operation with only optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention pagination or the return shape, but the schema already documents pagination fields, and the annotations cover safety behavior, so no critical context is missing.

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%, and the tool description does not mention any of the four parameters. The schema provides types, defaults, and enums, but the description adds no meaning or guidance about page, sort, per_page, or direction, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states the tool lists showcases, immediately clarifies that the API calls them albums, and adds the defining trait that each is a curated playlist with its own page. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders and get_showcase.

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 phrase 'List your showcases' establishes a clear use case: retrieve a collection of the user's own showcases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is the right tool for listing rather than fetching a single showcase.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the result includes languages and the active track, which is useful context, but it does not disclose further behavioral details like response shape or pagination.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the resource, and the key output details without any filler. Every word 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 simple one-parameter read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what the response will convey (languages and active track), and no output schema exists to fill that gap. It could mention response format or edge cases, but the low complexity makes this a minor omission.

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% and the single parameter video_id is described as 'Video id.' The description does not add any meaning beyond that, but with full schema coverage there is little the description needs to compensate for. 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('caption and subtitle tracks on a video'), and the key output attributes (languages and active status). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like upload_texttrack, update_texttrack, and delete_texttrack.

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 phrase 'on a video' gives clear context: use this when you need the track list for a specific video. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only listing purpose is obvious and contrasts cleanly with the mutation and transcript sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: newest-first default ordering and the specific trimmed fields returned (id, name, duration, privacy, play count, folder, status).

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and default behavior are front-loaded, the return shape is summarized compactly, and the alternative tool is mentioned in the final sentence. 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields and default sort order. Pagination is not described in prose, but the schema already documents page and per_page, so the description is adequately complete for invocation.

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 all five parameters already have clear descriptions, including defaults, enums, and bounds. The description adds general context like default ordering but does not need to restate parameter details; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List videos in your Vimeo library,' states default ordering, and distinguishes itself from get_video by noting the trimmed shape. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_video and search_videos.

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 explicitly directs the agent to get_video when the full object for one video is needed, which is strong guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention search_videos as an alternative for search-like queries, but the phrase 'in your Vimeo library' conveys the intended scope well enough.

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

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar for extra behavioral disclosure is lower. The description meaningfully adds that the video stays in the library, clarifying that only the showcase association is removed. It does not cover effects on the showcase or error behavior, but the core safety profile is well covered.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second sentence provides the key non-destructive clarification. Every sentence earns its place and the structure 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?

This is a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no nested objects. The description plus schema adequately convey what happens, what is untouched, and what identifiers are required. No critical information is missing for an agent to 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%, with both video_id and showcase_id already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

States a specific verb ('remove'), a specific resource ('video'), and a specific container ('showcase'). It immediately clarifies that the video itself remains in the library, distinguishing it from delete_video and delete_showcase. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this tool is for removing a single video's association with a showcase, and that it should not be chosen when deleting the video is intended. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not conditions, but the context is strong enough for correct routing.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is neither read-only nor destructive by default, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: the default is non-destructive unfiling, while delete_videos_too causes permanent destruction and requires confirm. This goes beyond the structured annotations and meaningfully informs the agent of irreversible consequences.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and default behavior are front-loaded, and the permanent-deletion caveat is placed exactly where it matters.

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 schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the call does, the default non-destructive path, and the destructive exception. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it does not describe the response format since no output schema exists.

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 folder_id, video_ids, confirm, and delete_videos_too. The description adds the relationship between confirm and delete_videos_too, but that is also present in the schema. It provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the structured 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 states a specific verb and resource: removing videos from a folder in one call. It also clarifies what this means functionally (unfiling, not deletion), which distinguishes it from delete_video and other removal-like siblings.

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 clearly explains the default behavior (unfile and return to main library) and the destructive alternative (delete_videos_too). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like delete_video, but the contrast between unfiling and permanent deletion gives enough context for an agent to choose appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so description credit is for added context. The description adds that matching is by title and description and that scope is restricted to the user's own library. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose pagination or result-ordering behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key scope limitation are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the clarifying exclusion appears second. 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 low-complexity search tool with rich annotations and simple pagination defaults, the description is largely complete. It lacks an output schema and does not describe return value shape, but that is less critical given the simplicity and the presence of sibling list/get tools for detailed retrieval.

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 only 33%: only 'query' has a description. The description helps by specifying that the query matches title and description, but it says nothing about the semantics of page or per_page. These pagination parameters are fairly inferable from their names and defaults, but the description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search your own library by title and description.' It clearly identifies the search scope as the user's own videos and explicitly distinguishes from searching all of Vimeo. This is specific enough to separate it from list_videos and get_video.

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 makes the scope clear by stating 'This searches your videos only, not all of Vimeo,' but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_videos or other sibling tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no alternative tool is named for non-search listing use cases.

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

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly disclosing the overwrite behavior: 'this overwrites what is there rather than adding to it.' This is valuable because annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only and idempotent; the description tells the agent that existing tags will be replaced.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, the critical overwrite behavior is stated immediately, and the search-related rationale earns its place by helping the agent understand downstream effects.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and useful annotations, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: the action, the overwrite behavior, and the practical reason tags matter. No output schema exists, so describing return values is unnecessary.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the detail that an empty array clears all tags. The description adds meaning by explaining why the full list is required and how tags connect to Vimeo search and search_videos results.

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: 'Replace a video's tags.' This distinguishes the tool from generic update_video and other sibling tools like set_video_thumbnail because it focuses narrowly on tag replacement. The overwrite semantics further clarify exactly what the tool does.

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 clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs to set or replace the complete tag list on a video. It also implies that this tool is the right choice for affecting search_videos results via tags, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds the upload-scope requirement and clarifies that the thumbnail is derived from the video itself. It does not, however, disclose whether an existing custom thumbnail is overwritten or how invalid timecodes are handled, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and source, followed by the essential permission requirement. There is no redundant content or filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the source of the thumbnail, and the required scope. Minor gaps such as overwrite behavior and response details are not critical for an agent to select and invoke the 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already clearly documented: video_id is the target video and time_seconds is the frame position. The description's 'timecode' wording aligns with the schema but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set a video's thumbnail', and adds the distinctive source 'from a timecode in the video itself.' This clearly differentiates it from general video update tools and other folder/showcase operations in the sibling list.

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 a useful prerequisite ('Needs the upload scope'), which helps the agent know whether it is permitted to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_video, nor does it provide exclusion conditions or use-case guidance beyond the obvious.

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

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the non-read-only nature is covered. The description adds the concrete behavior (changing title or moving timecode) but does not discuss side effects, overwriting semantics, or response behavior; it also does not contradict the idempotentHint.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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 core purpose is clear, but the wording 'or' is ambiguous about whether title and timecode can be updated together (the schema allows both). It also doesn't specify that at least one optional field should be present for a meaningful update, which is a relevant gap for a mutation tool.

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 documents all four parameters. The description paraphrases title and timecode_seconds but adds no new constraints, units, or guidance on whether one or both fields should be provided.

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 names the specific operation (change/move) and resource (chapter), and lists the exact mutable attributes (title, timecode). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_chapter, delete_chapter, and list_chapters.

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 intended scenario is implied: use this to modify an existing chapter. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are named, though the sibling names make the distinction inferable.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds a useful auth requirement ('Needs the edit scope') and clarifies the specific mutation being performed. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two short sentences, both informative: one states the operation, the other states the required scope. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 low-complexity mutation with fully described parameters, informative annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient for selection and invocation. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but those are not essential here.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('Folder id.', 'New name.'). The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the rename semantics, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional value.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Rename a folder') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling folder operations like create_folder, delete_folder, get_folder, and list_folders. The operation is unambiguous even 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 provides clear context by naming the operation ('Rename') and an explicit prerequisite ('Needs the edit scope'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but for a simple rename operation the usage context is clear.

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

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

The annotations indicate a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee that only passed fields are changed, which goes beyond the schema and annotations. It does not disclose side effects or authorization requirements, but the annotation profile already covers the main safety traits.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and affected fields are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the most important behavioral nuance without repeating schema details.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward update operation with a safe annotation profile, but incomplete around parameter semantics: password is undocumented in both description and schema, and there is no output schema to clarify the response. An agent can call it correctly but may mis-handle password/privacy without extra information.

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 only 17%, so the description needed to compensate. It repeats property names but does not explain the password field, the meaning of the privacy and sort enums, or the relationship between password and privacy=password. This leaves a significant parameter-semantics gap.

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 states a concrete action ('Update') on a specific resource ('a showcase') and lists the affected fields: name, description, privacy, and sort order. This clearly distinguishes it from create/get/delete showcase tools and from update_video/update_folder, and the phrase 'Only the fields you pass change' reinforces that this modifies rather than replaces.

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 is clear this is for modifying an existing showcase rather than creating, getting, or deleting one. The partial-update sentence provides a practical calling guideline, though no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description's mutation verbs are consistent with them—no contradiction. The description adds that there are three distinct modification modes (rename, language, active), but does not disclose whether updates are partial, whether setting active unsets the previous default track, or what side effects a language change has on transcripts. Moderate value beyond 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?

A single 14-word sentence that front-loads operations with action verbs ('Rename... change... make active') and contains zero redundant content. Every word 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 5-param mutation tool with 60% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics but leaves gaps: whether rename and language change can be combined in one call, whether setting active=true is exclusive, and what the response indicates about success. Adequate for basic invocation, thin on side effects and combination rules.

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 schema documents only video_id and track_id, leaving name, active, and language undocumented (60% coverage). The description compensates directly by mapping each undocumented param to an action: rename→name, change language→language, make active→active. This gives the agent semantic meaning the schema alone fails to provide.

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 names a specific resource (caption track) and three concrete operations (rename, change language, make active), with action verbs that clearly identify this as the modification tool for text tracks. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the enumerated operations effectively distinguish it from upload_texttrack and delete_texttrack in the sibling set.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_texttrack or delete_texttrack, and contains no exclusions or conditions. The only prerequisite hint (track_id 'from list_texttracks') lives in the schema, not the description. Usage context is purely implied by the tool's name and operation list.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it declares partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change') and the required scope ('Needs the edit scope'). Annotations already indicate mutation, idempotency, and non-destructive intent, so the description complements rather than contradicts them.

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 short sentences, each with a clear purpose: what the tool does, the partial-update behavior, and the auth requirement. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 six-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and annotations that disclose safety/idempotency, the description plus schema are sufficient. The only minor gap is that the description does not hint at the relationship between privacy_view='password' and the password parameter, but the schema explicitly covers it.

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 six parameters, including the password-required-when-privacy_view='password' rule. The description uses 'title' while the schema uses 'name', but this is a minor wording mismatch and the schema resolves it. The description does not add significant parameter-level value 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 the verb ('Update'), the resource ('a video'), and the specific fields affected ('title, description or privacy'). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the field list is specific enough to distinguish it from other video-related update tools like set_video_tags or set_video_thumbnail.

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 useful context—it states what fields are updated and that only passed fields change—so the intended use is implied. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use set_video_tags for tags' or 'use allow_embed_domain for embed domain rules.'

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

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-write and non-idempotent; the description adds the auth prerequisite ('Needs the upload scope') and clarifies that the track is created from user-supplied VTT. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences contain the essential purpose and a prerequisite with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the auth note is concise.

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?

Moderate complexity (6 params, 4 required) is fully covered by the schema, and the description supplies purpose plus auth scope. No output schema exists, but for a create operation the agent has enough to call it correctly; an explicit pointer to update_texttrack for modifying an existing track would make it fully 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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description's reference to WebVTT content merely aligns with the vtt param and adds no new parameter-level information; 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?

States a specific action — 'Add a caption or subtitle track to a video' — and the input source (WebVTT content). The verb 'Add' clearly differentiates it from siblings like update_texttrack, list_texttracks, and delete_texttrack.

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 when to use it: when the caller is supplying WebVTT content and needs upload scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: Vimeo pulls the file itself, the call returns immediately with a video id while transcoding continues, and the video is not playable right away. It also discloses the auth requirement (upload scope), which is information no structured field provides. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, constraint, async behavior, and auth requirement. The most decision-relevant information (what it does and how) is front-loaded, and the auth note is efficiently tucked at the end. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 async nature and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior (immediate video id, not playable yet) and the key precondition. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., unreachable URL response) or suggesting a follow-up like get_video to track transcoding status, which would round out the picture for an agent.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the schema for the only required parameter: 'Vimeo pulls the file itself' explains why the url must be publicly reachable, complementing the schema's brief 'Publicly reachable URL' note. The other four parameters rely on schema descriptions and enum values, which are adequate even though the description doesn't elaborate on them. At 60% schema coverage, the description compensates for the most critical parameter, which is exactly where agents need the extra context.

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?

States a specific verb (upload), resource (video to Vimeo), and method (giving a public URL to fetch), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_videos, update_video, and add_videos_to_folder. The fetching mechanism is stated up front, so an agent immediately knows this creates a new video resource rather than operating on an existing one.

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?

Provides clear precondition for use: the URL must be publicly reachable, not a local path — which tells an agent when this tool is viable versus when it isn't. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling directly competes for this operation (upload_texttrack is the closest cousin and targets a different resource), so explicit exclusions aren't necessary.

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