Submit an authorized video testimonial

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

Annotations declare a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, but do not explain the mechanics. The description adds real value the annotations cannot: the provider retrieves and processes the URL, this package does not download it, and a successful call does not imply processing is complete (async). It still omits why the operation is destructive and what authorization/consent is needed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then two behavioral caveats. Nothing is padding and the async caveat is placed where it will be read.

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, zero-required, destructive, open-world write with no output schema, the description covers async processing but says nothing about the confirmation flag, the consent semantics (customer_consent vs. payload.confirm vs. isLiked), or the payload/flag/payload_file exclusivity. Adequate but leaving meaningful gaps that the schema only partly closes.

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% and the parameters are well documented in the schema itself (confirm, isLiked, payload vs. payload_file exclusivity, videoURL format). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource: import an authorized, publicly accessible video for a testimonial. The 'video' scope implicitly separates it from submit_text_testimonial, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It imposes a precondition (video must be real, public, and authorized) but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives such as preview_testimonial_batch or submit_testimonial_batch. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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