tokportal_fix_bundle_video_download

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that a due active period may renew automatically, and that if coverage cannot renew, no mutation occurs. This conveys important side effects and failure modes. However, it does not mention that the operation is not idempotent (despite the idempotency_key parameter) or discuss retry safety.

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 earning its place. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds preconditions, and the third explains a conditional side effect. No redundancy or fluff.

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 (4 parameters, nested body, no output schema), the description covers the core operation and preconditions but is incomplete regarding return values. It does not describe what the response contains (e.g., success indicator, updated bundle data) or error scenarios beyond coverage renewal failure. An output schema would reduce the need for such detail, but none is provided.

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. The description does not add substantive meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'manager-flagged broken video or carousel download URL' which hints at the body structure but does not clarify position, id, or idempotency_key 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 the tool's purpose: fixing a broken video download by replacing a manager-flagged URL and clearing the download issue flag. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_bundle_video or patch_bundle_video, which address different aspects of bundle video management.

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 clear context for when this tool should be used: only when a download is manager-flagged as broken. It also specifies prerequisites (account must have active TokPortal Coverage or be grandfathered) and describes automatic renewal behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, missing a chance to guide selection among the many bundle video tools.

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