upload_certified_video

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description is consistent and adds real value: a no-transcode/no-edit guarantee, the return payload (asset ID, storage destination, size verification, certification status), and the prerequisite-certification step. It stops short of covering failure modes or re-upload/idempotency implications, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its guarantees in the first sentence, then uses the second for prerequisites and the hand-off to add_certified_asset_node. No redundant or filler text; every sentence carries routing or constraint 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not detail return values, yet it still summarizes them. Workflow prerequisites, exclusion of already-generated videos, and the required follow-up tool make this fully sufficient for correct 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%, so all four parameters (project, file_path, group, display_name) are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_certified_groups and list_projects. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('upload and certify a local reference video') and pins down scope with '按原文件上传（不转码、不剪辑）', distinguishing it from upload_certified_image (video vs image) and from create_video_node. An agent knows exactly what operation this is 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?

Explicitly states the condition ('本地参考视频必须先认证才能接到视频节点上') and the exclusion ('画布上已生成的视频不用这一步'), and names the follow-up sibling ('认证完再用 add_certified_asset_node 放到画布上'). Both when-to-use and the alternative path are spelled out.

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