tokportal_finalize_bundle_video

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains that the tool may automatically renew coverage at the stored rate, and that no task or media mutation occurs if coverage cannot renew. This provides actionable context about conditional side effects. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description complements them without contradiction.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose directly. The subsequent sentences add necessary conditional details without repetition or fluff. Every sentence contributes value, making it highly efficient.

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 lacks information about what happens on successful finalization (e.g., return value, state change confirmation). Terms like 'due active period' and 'stored rate' are unexplained, assuming domain knowledge. Given no output schema, the description should clarify the outcome and key concepts to be truly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (id, position, idempotency_key). The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context for these parameters, so the baseline score 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 opens with 'Finalize video review,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'tokportal_finalize_bundle_account' by targeting video specifically. However, the rest of the description focuses on account coverage conditions rather than elaborating what 'finalize' entails (e.g., marking the review as complete), leaving some ambiguity about the exact action.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like tokportal_publish_bundle_video, tokportal_configure_bundle_video, or tokportal_finalize_bundle_account. The prerequisites are stated (active coverage or grandfathered account), but there is no direct mention of when this step is appropriate or when alternatives should be chosen.

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