tokportal_add_video_slots

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, minimally intrusive (destructiveHint: false), and not open-world. The description correctly implies a mutating action. However, it does not disclose what happens to existing slots, whether the operation is additive or total replacement, or any side effects. With low annotation signal, the description misses behavioral clarity.

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 a single, clear sentence that covers the core action and resource. Every word is necessary. No fluff.

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 the tool has no output schema and three parameters (including a nested body), the description does not explain the operation's effect on the bundle, any validation errors, or return value. It is bare-minimum complete for a simple additive action, but lacks context for error cases or confirmation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema. The schema already explains 'id' as Bundle ID and 'body' with quantity constraints. The description's brevity does not reduce clarity, but it also does not enhance it. Baseline 3 for high coverage, +1 because the nested body object and idempotency key are clear enough without further prose.

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 'Add video slots to a bundle' clearly states the verb (add) and the resource (video slots to a bundle). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'tokportal_add_edit_slots', which also adds a type of slot to a bundle. The scope is specific enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like creating or editing a bundle, or the similar 'tokportal_add_edit_slots'). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., bundle must exist), nor exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.