tokportal_configure_bundle_video

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains story-specific constraints (exactly one of video_url/story_image_url, no description, verification screenshot), credit cost for story_repost_url, and coverage renewal conditions. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false but no cost or lifecycle details, so the description fills these gaps well. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 functional but slightly redundant: the first two sentences both say 'Configure a video slot' and 'Configure a slot as ...'. Important details (story rules, coverage conditions) are present but not front-loaded in a single cohesive paragraph. Could be streamlined by merging the opening and moving the coverage block to a separate note.

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?

Description covers many domain-specific rules (story verification, renewal conditions, per-day limits) but lacks lifecycle context: it does not mention that this is part of a multi-step workflow (configure → publish/finalize) or what the return value looks like (no output schema). Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete but misses key workflow integration cues.

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description reiterates some constraints (like story requiring exactly one media URL and no description) but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The redundancy is neutral; baseline score of 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 a video slot' and specifies that a slot can be configured as video, carousel, or story. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'patch' or 'finalize' by using the verb 'configure', though it does not explicitly differentiate from tools like tokportal_patch_bundle_video. The resource and action are specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tokportal_patch_bundle_video or tokportal_add_video_slots. The description does not mention workflow context (e.g., for initial slot setup vs. editing) or provide any 'use when' / 'don't use when' indicators.

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