tokportal_batch_configure_bundle_videos

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral context: the Coverage preflight, auto-renewal possibility, and that no mutation occurs if renewal fails. This goes beyond the annotation data.

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, each serving a purpose: the first states the action, the second explains the coverage requirement, the third covers renewal and failure behavior. No extraneous words.

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?

While the description covers the coverage and batch aspects well, it does not clarify the relationship with sibling tools like tokportal_add_video_slots (e.g., does this configure already-added slots or add+configure?). The absence of any mention of what 'configure' means in the slot lifecycle leaves a gap, given the tool's complexity.

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%, with all parameters documented inline. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Configure video slots in bulk' and explains the batch nature with a single Coverage preflight. It distinguishes itself from singular sibling tools like tokportal_configure_bundle_video by emphasizing bulk and the preflight step.

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 explicitly states prerequisites (active Coverage or permanent grandfathering) and conditions for auto-renewal and failure. It does not, however, directly compare with alternatives like tokportal_configure_bundle_video (singular) or indicate when to choose this batch variant over them.

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