tokportal_create_video_ad_code_request

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

The description goes far beyond the basic annotations (which only indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent). It discloses that 7 credits are debited, the operation is atomic (assignment, debit, task creation), the routing logic for managers, eligibility rules for completed bundles, and the necessity to poll the GET endpoint. No contradictions with annotations 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 dense and covers many operational details, but it is somewhat verbose. For example, the paragraph on manager routing and eligibility could be shortened without losing clarity. While the core purpose is front-loaded, the extra details increase length beyond what is strictly necessary for a tool description.

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 a nested input schema, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining side effects (credit debit, atomicity), constraints (one request per video), and post-request actions (poll GET endpoint). It does not describe the return value, but that is acceptable since there is no output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. It mentions platforms (TikTok/Instagram) but the schema already describes them with an enum. The idempotency_key is not elaborated. Overall, the description adds no new semantic value for parameters.

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 main action: 'Request an ad code (TikTok Spark Code / Instagram Partner Code) for a finalized video.' It names the specific resources (ad code, video) and the action (request). Among siblings, there is a separate GET endpoint for ad code requests, making this the sole creation tool, so sibling differentiation 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 explicitly lists prerequisites: video must be finalized with a live post link, active TokPortal Coverage, and a routable account manager. It also restricts to one open request per video. While it does not name alternative tools for non-finalized videos (e.g., bundling or finalization), the prerequisites serve as clear usage guidance.

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