tokportal_patch_bundle_video

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, including coverage renewal conditions and failure behavior ('If Coverage cannot renew, no task or media mutation starts'). Annotations only provide basic hints (readOnlyHint: false), so the description carries the transparency burden and does so well, though it could mention idempotency implications of the renewal.

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?

Three sentences: first sentence clearly states the core action, followed by two sentences about preconditions. It is front-loaded and efficient. Minor deduction for the second and third sentences being somewhat dense but still necessary for transparency; could be slightly more structured.

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 covers core action and important preconditions (coverage/grandfathered accounts). However, with no output schema, the agent is not informed about the return value or success response. The description also does not clarify what 'schedule' patching entails vs metadata patching. Adequate but misses some completeness for a straightforward patch operation.

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 good parameter descriptions (e.g., target_publish_date includes constraint 'Max 3 videos per day per bundle'). The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states 'Patch video metadata or schedule', which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokportal_get_bundle_video (read), tokportal_configure_bundle_video (full configuration), and tokportal_publish_bundle_video (publishing). The core purpose is immediately clear.

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. It does not mention when to patch vs configure, finalize, or other video operations. The coverage conditions are preconditions, not alternative selection criteria. Essential usage context is missing.

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