tokportal_upload_video

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

Annotations show no hints (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive). The description discloses critical behaviors: that the response contains a secret not stored in the replay ledger, that idempotency keys are rejected, and the specific error code. This fully compensates for the lack of annotation hints.

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?

Four sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, warning, implication of warning, and consequences. Extremely efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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 is complete for its purpose: creating an upload URL. It covers the operation and a key rejection scenario. There is no output schema, so it doesn't detail the response format (e.g., the upload URL structure), which is a minor gap given the complexity of a presigned URL flow.

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 the nested body property. The description does not add any semantics about the parameters (filename, bundle_id, content_type) beyond what the schema already defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 explicitly states it creates a video upload URL and returns a presigned upload capability. It immediately clarifies it does not directly upload a video but initiates the upload process, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tokportal_upload_video_direct.

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 explicitly warns against sending an Idempotency-Key header and specifies the error response if done. This is crucial guidance that prevents a specific failure mode, addressing a key operational constraint.

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