tokportal_patch_bundle_video

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: the dependency on active TokPortal Coverage or permanent grandfathering, the possibility of automatic renewal at the stored rate, and the condition that if Coverage cannot renew then no task or media mutation starts. These details inform the agent about side effects and preconditions. Annotations provide no contradictions (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description could also mention idempotency behavior, but the idempotentKey parameter is already documented in the schema.

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, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the verb and resource, the second and third describe critical preconditions and failure behavior. No fluff 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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested body, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, preconditions, and one failure mode. It does not explain the return value (since no output schema exists) or the exact semantics of partial body updates, but these can be inferred from 'patch'. The constraints like max 3 videos per day are in the schema, not repeated. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's operation and side effects.

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 100% – all 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema; it confirms that metadata and schedule fields are affected, but the schema already defines each field (name, description, external_ref, etc.) with constraints. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not substantially enhance parameter understanding.

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 starts with 'Patch video metadata or schedule', using a specific verb ('patch') and resource ('video metadata or schedule'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tokportal_update_bundle' (which updates the whole bundle) and 'tokportal_configure_bundle_video' (which may configure video-related settings). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tokportal_configure_bundle_video', 'tokportal_update_bundle', or 'tokportal_publish_bundle_video'. It mentions conditions related to Coverage and renewal but these are operational constraints, not selection criteria. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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