Subir un clip

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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description carries real weight: it discloses the accepted media constraints, the 280 MB cap, and critically that moderation is asynchronous (24-48 hs) and must be re-checked with ml_clips. It does not say whether an existing clip is replaced, what happens on moderation rejection, or auth/account scoping rules.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the constraint block plus the follow-up pointer are packed into the second sentence.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the media preconditions, the async moderation behavior, and the verification sibling. It leaves the item_id format and any return/confirmation payload implicit, which is a small but real gap.

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 67%; archivo and cuenta are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the meaning of the undocumented item_id ('a una publicación'), without stating it is the publication identifier or the expected format (e.g. MCO123). Baseline 3 given partial schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Sube) plus resource (un Clip, video vertical corto) and the target (una publicación), and even names ml_clips as the follow-up verification tool. An agent can distinguish it from ml_borrar_clip and ml_clips without opening any schema.

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 'Requisitos de MercadoLibre' block effectively states the preconditions for use (publicación activa, format, duration, resolution, size), and it routes the agent to ml_clips afterwards to check moderation. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or contrasting it with ml_borrar_clip/ml_actualizar_publicacion.

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