Submit an authorized video testimonial

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

Annotations declare this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the provider retrieves/processes the URL rather than the package downloading it, and success does not mean processing has finished (asynchronous). That async caveat is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the import action front-loaded and the two behavioral caveats trailing. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a nested payload object, three mutually exclusive input modes (payload, body flags, payload_file), zero required params, and no output schema, the description covers the async behavior but gives no guidance on which input mode to use or the confirm/consent requirements. The schema carries most of that, but the complexity leaves clear gaps.

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 91%, so the schema already documents the parameters, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the 'authorized/public' qualifier. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Import a real publicly accessible authorized video'), which lets an agent distinguish this from submit_text_testimonial and the batch sibling without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming itself a 'video testimonial' submission or differentiating further from the siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over submit_text_testimonial, submit_testimonial_batch, or send_testimonial_request. The 'publicly accessible authorized' qualifier hints at preconditions but gives no routing guidance.

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