tokportal_unschedule_bundle_video

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is clear. The description adds useful context about coverage requirements and conditional behavior (auto-renewal, no-op if coverage fails). However, it does not explain whether the operation is reversible or what exactly gets destroyed (deletion vs. just removing from schedule). 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 a single paragraph of three sentences – not overly long, but the coverage/renewal details feel tangential to the core unscheduling action. Some sentences could be more tightly scoped to the tool's primary behavior.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should clarify what happens on success/failure (e.g., return confirmation or error). It mentions conditions for no-op but not the response. For a destructive tool with 3 params and no output schema, this is slightly incomplete – a note on return values would help.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already handles documentation adequately.

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 title and description clearly state 'Unschedule one video slot,' providing a specific verb-resource combination. However, the description extends to complex coverage and renewal conditions that obscure the core action, and there are many 'bundle video' siblings (configure, patch, batch_configure, publish_all, reset, finalize, request_corrections, fix_download) that could be confused without clearer differentiation.

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 implies usage for unscheduling a specific video slot within a bundle, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset_bundle_video' or 'configure_bundle_video'. There are no 'when not to use' or alternative tool references.

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