upload_video_material

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent, so the description is not the sole source of behavioral information. It adds that the upload is permanent and sourced from a local MP4 file, but it does not disclose constraints like file size limits, duration limits, or duplicate handling.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the essential information: what is uploaded, in what format, and the permanence of the result. There is no wasted wording 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?

The tool is relatively simple with three required scalar parameters and an output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. Still, it lacks explicit usage guidance and important constraints such as file size or format limits, and it leaves parameter semantics partly to inference.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that file_path refers to a local MP4 file, which is useful. However, it gives no explicit meaning or constraints for the required title and introduction parameters, even though their names are fairly self-explanatory.

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 ('upload'), resource ('local MP4'), and outcome ('permanent video material'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like upload_temp_media and upload_voice_material by specifying 'permanent' and '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?

Usage context is implied by the words 'permanent' and 'video material', suggesting this is for permanent video uploads rather than temporary or voice materials. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_temp_media or upload_voice_material.

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