Publish Video Thread

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

The note 'Video processing may take time. Polls for up to 60 seconds.' adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, which are all false. This informs the agent about async behavior and latency, though it doesn't cover all aspects like idempotency (annotations say false) or error 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 concise with three lines plus a note, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient but incomplete, as it only mentions a subset of parameters, which could mislead an agent that doesn't inspect the schema.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only 3 parameters and doesn't mention location_id, reply_control, or response_format. It also omits return value details. However, the schema descriptions cover those params, and the polling note is valuable. Overall, it's moderately complete but relies heavily on schema for full understanding.

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 description lists only three parameters (threads_user_id, video_url, text) and adds minimal semantic value: it only describes 'text' as 'Caption text', which is not in the schema. The other three parameters (location_id, reply_control, response_format) are omitted entirely, and video_url/threads_user_id are just restated. With schema coverage at 67%, the description should compensate for undocumented params but doesn't.

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 action and resource: 'Publishes a video post to Threads.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like threads_publish_text and threads_publish_image by explicitly mentioning 'video post'.

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 usage for video posts, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned. The context is clear that it's for video, but it doesn't state to use this over text/image tools. Still, the purpose alone gives adequate context for selection.

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