create_video_asset

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

The description is fully transparent about the tool's behavior: it creates a record only, does not upload bytes, and will fail against the current backend. It also notes that it returns a signed URL for uploading, which clarifies the expected output. No contradictions with the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) exist.

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, using only a few sentences to convey purpose, deprecation warning, usage alternative, and parameter hints. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the most important information (deprecation and alternative) 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?

Given that this is a deprecated, non-functional tool, the description is contextually complete: it explains why the tool fails, what alternative to use, and provides the essential parameter hints. No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly avoid this tool and choose the recommended one.

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 provides meaningful context for only two of five parameters: workspace_id (with a hint to get IDs from list_workspaces()) and extension (with an example like 'mp4'). The remaining parameters (name, hub_profile_id, memory_size_in_bytes) have no description, and the schema provides zero coverage, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of 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's purpose: to create a video file asset record. It explicitly labels itself as DEPRECATED and explains that it only registers a record without uploading bytes, which is a precise, unambiguous 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 gives direct usage guidance: it warns that the tool is deprecated, that the current backend requires a multipart upload init so the call fails, and explicitly directs users to 'use upload_asset' instead. This is actionable and leaves no ambiguity about when not to use it.

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