tokportal_add_video_slots

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: false and idempotentHint: false, so the description should clarify behavior such as whether this is an additive operation (non-destructive) and that retries are not safe without an idempotency key. The description simply restates the tool's function without addressing these traits, creating ambiguity about whether adding slots updates an existing bundle or creates separate resource records.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail for an agent to use the tool correctly, so it cannot score a 5.

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 nested body object and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated bundle object, list of added slots) and any side effects (e.g., triggers pricing or availability checks). It provides none of this context, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with all three parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., id is a bundle UUID, body contains a quantity). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not 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 "Add video slots to a bundle" conveys a clear verb and resource, but it fails to meaningfully distinguish this tool from tokportal_add_edit_slots, which likely serves a similar purpose for a different slot type. The sibling list includes both tools, yet the description provides no unique qualifier such as "sponsored" or "promotional" slots, leaving an agent to guess the difference.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like tokportal_add_edit_slots or tokportal_publish_bundle. The context of bundles and slots is implied by the name, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., bundle must exist) or constraints (e.g., maximum slots per bundle).

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