tokportal_finalize_bundle_video

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing behavioral traits: it checks coverage, may renew automatically, and if renewal fails, no mutation occurs. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description clarifies that mutations may happen conditionally. 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 four sentences long, which is relatively concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the subsequent sentences delve into specific conditions without a clear structure. It could be more streamlined, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

The description explains the conditional coverage renewal logic but does not specify what the tool does beyond 'finalizing' (e.g., state changes, response). There is no output schema, and the description omits the outcome of a successful finalization. It assumes domain knowledge of 'TokPortal Coverage' and 'grandfathered' status, which may be acceptable but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 clear descriptions for 'id', 'position', and 'idempotency_key'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics or usage examples, so it does not improve upon the schema. 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 states 'Finalize video review' which is a verb+resource, but it's vague; it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'finalize bundle account' or 'publish bundle video'. The additional details about coverage renewal add context but not a precise definition of what finalizing the review entails.

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 provides conditions for the operation (coverage must be active or grandfathered, automatic renewal possible) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'publish bundle video' or 'configure bundle video'. It implies usage during finalization but lacks clear guidance on tool selection.

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