tokportal_create_video_ad_code_request

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, etc. The description adds significant behavioral context: 'debits 7 credits', 'Assignment, debit, and task creation are atomic', 'Only one open request per video', and the manager selection logic. This goes beyond the sparse annotations and provides valuable insight into side effects and constraints.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then adds necessary constraints. However, the first two sentences are redundant: 'Request an ad code...' and 'Requests an ad code...' essentially restate the same thing. Despite this, the rest is dense with useful information and avoids fluff, so it remains reasonably 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?

The description covers prerequisites (finalized video, coverage, manager), cost (7 credits), atomicity, concurrency rule, manager selection hierarchy, and next steps (poll GET endpoint). It explains eligibility for completed bundles and never restoring cancelled orders. This is thorough for a mutation tool with no output schema, providing a complete picture of what to expect.

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%, with every parameter described (id, body with note and platform, idempotency_key). The description does not add extra semantics for these parameters beyond the schema, but it does mention 'debits 7 credits' which is a side effect, not a parameter. Since schema already documents parameters thoroughly, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Request an ad code (TikTok Spark Code / Instagram Partner Code) for a finalized video.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings—no other sibling creates ad code requests. The title similarly reinforces the purpose, so there's no ambiguity.

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 gives explicit when to use: 'for a finalized video' and prerequisites: 'video must be finalized on TikTok or Instagram with a live post link. Active TokPortal Coverage and a routable active account manager are required.' It also notes 'Only one open request per video is allowed' and directs to poll the GET endpoint. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but given no sibling does this, it's clear enough.

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