tokportal_import_bundle_videos_csv

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false), so the bar is lowered. The description adds crucial behavioral context: coverage checks happen before media fetching, renewal automates at stored rates, and no mutation occurs if 'Coverage cannot renew'. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact at four sentences, front-loading the core action. Each sentence adds value: import process, coverage check, renewal requirements, failure handling. Minor point: the last two sentences could be slightly more concise ('A due active period can renew automatically...' is somewhat 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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and is complex (CSV handling, media fetching, coverage checks). The description adequately covers the workflow and guardrails (coverage, renewal). It doesn't explain return behavior (e.g., success/failure response), but since there's no output schema, the description could be improved by mentioning what the agent can expect after execution.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to individual parameters (e.g., what 'auto_publish' does under the hood, or how 'idempotency_key' interacts with the process). It remains generic about the overall workflow without enhancing 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 uses specific verbs ('Import', 'Uploads', 'downloads', 'configures') and names the resource ('video slots from CSV'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings: 'tokportal_publish_bundle' and 'tokportal_list_bundle_videos' focus on publishing or listing, while this tool handles the import and configuration from a CSV file.

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 to use the tool (importing video slots from CSV) and outlines prerequisites and behaviors (bundles must have active TokPortal Coverage or be grandfathered, automatic renewal details). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related tasks like batch configuration ('tokportal_batch_configure_bundle_videos').

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