tokportal_batch_configure_bundle_videos

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint: true (the idempotency key supports safe retries), readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false. The description adds behavioral context about Coverage preflight, renewal, and conditional execution ('If Coverage cannot renew, no task or media mutation starts'), which complements annotations. However, it doesn't fully detail side effects like credit costs for premium features like instant_repost_as_story.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct information: bulk config, Coverage preflight, Coverage/grandfather requirement, and auto-renewal with fallback. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for prerequisites). The title repeats the first line but that's fine.

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 complexity (nested objects, 30+ sub-properties, premium features, daily limits) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers Coverage and renewal but omits details like VIDEOS_PER_DAY_EXCEEDED, credit costs for paid features (instant_repost_as_story), and the 'position' element's significance. An agent would need to infer these from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning 'account-level Coverage preflight' and auto-renewal, which provide context for the 'body' parameter. It also implies the need for an existing bundle ('Bundle ID' in id description). This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 'Configure video slots in bulk' and explains it configures several slots after one account-level Coverage preflight. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tokportal_configure_bundle_video (single video slot) or tokportal_add_video_slots, but the bulk nature is implicit.

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 some usage context, mentioning requirements for active TokPortal Coverage or being grandfathered, and auto-renewal behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokportal_configure_bundle_video for single slots or the per-bundle limits (max 500 videos, max 3 per day). No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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