tokportal_unschedule_bundle_video

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that coverage renewal is checked before execution, and if renewal fails, no task or media mutation starts. This goes beyond what annotations convey, giving the agent a clear understanding of side effects and failure modes.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the following sentences add necessary conditions. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and critical conditions (coverage renewal). However, it omits practical details like whether the bundle must be unpublished, what the return value might be (confirmation, updated state), or how this affects publishing readiness. The agent may need to infer or test these aspects.

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 any extra semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'Bundle ID', '1-based video slot position', 'Optional Idempotency-Key'). It neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity, earning a neutral score.

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 starts with 'Unschedule one video slot,' which clearly states the verb (unschedule) and resource (one video slot). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like tokportal_publish_bundle_video or tokportal_configure_bundle_video, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides conditions about account coverage that must be met, but no guidance on when to prefer this over tokportal_reset_bundle_video or other slot-related operations. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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