tokportal_upload_video

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

Beyond the annotations (which only set readOnlyHint=false, destuctiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: the presigned URL is short-lived, the response contains a secret that is not stored in the replay ledger, and sending an Idempotency-Key triggers a 400 error before any execution. This significantly clarifies the tool's side effects and safety profile. Slightly held back by omitting the response structure, but still strong.

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 long, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then adds essential constraints and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical operational details (short-lived URL, idempotency prohibition, security note). Exceptionally concise for the depth of information.

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 a single parameter (a nested object with three fields) and no output schema, the description could do more. It omits the response structure (e.g., what fields are returned—upload_url, expiry, etc.). It also does not mention prerequisites (the bundle must exist before its ID is used). The behavioral notes are helpful, but these gaps reduce completeness.

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 reported as 100%, meaning the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (the `body` parameter has description 'JSON request body.'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters (filename, bundle_id, content_type). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate beyond that.

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 states the core purpose clearly: 'Create a video upload URL' and 'Returns a short-lived presigned upload capability.' However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `tokportal_upload_video_direct`, which likely performs a direct upload instead of generating a URL. This lack of explicit contrast prevents a top score.

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 only one usage constraint: 'Do not send Idempotency-Key.' It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `tokportal_upload_video_direct` for direct uploads, or other upload tools). There are no context clues about prerequisites (e.g., needing a bundle_id from a previously created bundle) or typical scenarios.

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