tokportal_patch_bundle_video

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description complements by explaining that patching may be blocked if coverage cannot renew, revealing a conditional behavior. This adds value beyond annotations, though more details on rollback or error states would be useful.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences. It is not overly verbose but could benefit from being more front-loaded; the first sentence suffice for purpose, but the second and third sentences about coverage are specific and earn their place. It is adequate but not exceptionally concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a nested body object, the description covers the critical coverage constraint but omits details on response behavior or what happens if validation fails. It is complete enough for basic use but lacks depth for troubleshooting or advanced workflows.

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% with detailed parameter hints (e.g., maxLength, pattern, enum-like constraints). The description adds no new meaning to parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 it patches video metadata or schedule, distinguishing it from siblings like 'tokportal_publish_bundle_video' or 'tokportal_unschedule_bundle_video'. However, the initial phrasing is generic and does not fully differentiate from 'tokportal_configure_bundle_video' which also modifies videos.

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 context about coverage and renewal conditions but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tokportal_configure_bundle_video' or 'tokportal_finalize_bundle_video'. The coverage condition is helpful but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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