send_prepared_videos

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partially covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: it sends in order, stops subsequent sends on failure, and on re-execution skips already-sent items. This resume/stop-on-failure semantics is valuable operational context. One caveat: the 'skips already-sent' resume behavior is in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but since unsent items still fire on re-run, the tool remains non-idempotent, so it is not a hard 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the action, the second adds failure and resume semantics. No filler. Slightly vague in using '準備ID' without anchoring it to job_ids, but overall efficient and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers ordering, failure-stop, and resume behavior. What remains under-specified is prerequisite state (must videos be prepared first) and per-item result reporting, but the core behavior an agent needs to call it is present.

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 single parameter job_ids has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that these are '準備ID' (preparation IDs) and that they are processed in order, which gives meaning to the array. However it does not specify format, ordering constraints, batch limits, or whether duplicates are allowed, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 ('送信する' = send) and resource ('準備ID' / prepared videos) and adds that they are sent 'in order.' An agent can distinguish this batch-send tool from prepare_video. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling singular send_prepared_video, but the plural name plus 'in order' clarifies the batch nature.

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 describes what happens during execution but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like send_prepared_video (singular) or prepare_video. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., videos must first be prepared) or conditions selecting this tool over siblings, so an agent must infer usage.

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