tokportal_fix_bundle_video_download

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the conditional execution based on coverage renewal, the replacement of URLs, and the clearing of a download issue flag. This adds valuable context that annotations (which only indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive) do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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, all essential and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds unique information: the core fix action, the replacement target, the coverage condition, and the no-op fallback. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers purpose and preconditions well. However, it omits details like what happens on success (return value or status), error scenarios, or definitions of domain terms like 'TokPortal Coverage'. This leaves gaps for an agent needing to understand the full outcome and edge cases.

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 already has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including details about UUID, body structure, position, and idempotency key. The description does not add further meaning to any specific parameter beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'video or carousel download URL' which aligns with the body fields, but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'Fix a broken video download' by replacing a manager-flagged broken download URL and clearing the issue flag. This is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_bundle' or 'publish_bundle_video' by focusing on fixing broken downloads flagged by a manager.

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 usage context by specifying prerequisites: the bundle must resolve to a delivered saved account with active TokPortal Coverage or be permanently grandfathered. It also explains that a due active period can renew automatically, and if coverage cannot renew, no mutation occurs. This gives clear conditions for execution, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives (which are lacking as direct substitutes).

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