tokportal_finalize_bundle_video

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits not captured by annotations: that it conditionally mutates (depending on Coverage), that a due active period can auto-renew at a stored rate, and that if Coverage cannot renew, no task or media mutation occurs. Annotations show destructiveHint: false, so this reveals that mutation is conditional and safe under some circumstances. However, it doesn't fully describe what happens to the bundle state, what triggers failure, or the exact return behavior (since no output schema exists). Still, it's a strong addition beyond the structured fields.

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 compact (3 sentences) and front-loads the main action ('Finalize video review') followed by conditional logic. Every sentence adds value: the first sets the purpose, the second details the Coverage rule, the third explains auto-renewal, and the fourth clarifies the no-op case. It could be slightly more terse by combining a few clauses, but it's efficient and readable with no filler.

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 a tool with no output schema, 3 parameters (all described in schema), and moderate complexity (conditional logic with Coverage), the description adequately covers the operational flow: finalization, Coverage requirement, auto-renewal, and no-operation fallback. The condition about 'no task or media mutation starts' is helpful. However, it doesn't explain what 'resolves to a delivered saved account' means in practice, nor does it clarify error states or how to interpret the outcome (since no output schema exists). This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 all three parameters (id, position, idempotency_key) are described in the schema. The description adds no specific information about these parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, required status, optionality). The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't contradict the schema either.

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 'Finalize video review' and explains the core conditional logic: if the bundle resolves to a delivered saved account, it must have active TokPortal Coverage or be permanently grandfathered. This is a specific verb+resource with a well-defined conditional action, distinguishing it from siblings like tokportal_publish_bundle (which focuses on publishing) and tokportal_finalize_bundle_account (which targets a different resource).

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when finalizing a video review that involves account Coverage conditions. It explains the behavior around auto-renewal and no-operation if Coverage can't renew. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you haven't yet set up Coverage), nor does it mention prerequisites like ensuring Coverage terms are in place before calling. Still, the context is fairly clear for a specialized finalization tool.

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