tokportal_add_video_slots

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

Annotations do not mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=false), but adding slots implies mutation. The description does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether this is reversible, if it can be done after publishing, or the impact on existing slots). With no output schema, the lack of detail on what confirming the mutation looks like is a gap.

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 sentence of five words, which is extremely concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. For a tool with 3 parameters and potential side effects, a few more sentences would improve clarity without becoming verbose. Still, it effectively communicates the core action.

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 (3 params, 1 nested object, no output schema, no parameter enums), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the business context of 'video slots' vs. 'edit slots' (crucial with sibling tokportal_add_edit_slots), the effect on bundle state, or error conditions. The complete schema coverage and annotations are helpful but don't fill these gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema about parameters. Critical details are missing: the relationship between id and body, what 'quantity' represents (e.g., total video slots in bundle vs. additional slots?), and how the idempotency_key works exactly. The parameter descriptions are terse; the description could clarify these semantics.

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 this tool adds video slots to a bundle, using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('video slots to a bundle'). Among siblings, the most similar are tokportal_add_edit_slots and tokportal_create_bundle, but the description distinguishes the slot type (video vs. edit) and the action (add vs. create), providing clear 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like tokportal_add_edit_slots or tokportal_create_bundle. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., bundle must exist), exclusions (e.g., bundle must not be published), or idempotency behavior despite an idempotency_key parameter and idempotentHint=false. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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