tokportal_configure_bundle_video

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral details: story rules (exactly one of video_url or story_image_url, no description), credit cost for repost, required account coverage, automatic renewal behavior, and failure conditions. This adds significant value.

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 efficient, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides distinct information. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the story rules and coverage conditions, but it remains readable and avoids redundancy.

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 of the input (nested object, many sub-parameters) and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects like story constraints and subscription dependencies. However, it lacks clarity on whether configuration completely replaces or merges with existing slot settings, and does not mention the response or confirmation, leaving some gaps despite annotations partially covering idempotency.

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 the schema itself handles most parameter documentation. The description adds meaningful context for story-related parameters (story_image_url, story_repost_url) and the video_type enum's implications, but does not elaborate on other parameters like id or position, which are adequately described in 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 the verb 'configure' and the resource 'video slot', and specifies the slot types (video, carousel, story). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the exact slot configuration, but does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like patch_bundle_video or batch_configure_bundle_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 story specifics, coverage requirements, and renewal behavior, which implies when to use this tool for story slots or under subscription constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like patch_bundle_video, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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