wecandeo_upload_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the source can be local or remote, but does not disclose what happens after upload (e.g., encoding, processing), authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects like deletion of original file (orgFileDel parameter not explained).

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 very concise at two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping related info, but it's acceptable given the length.

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?

Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the upload process, prerequisites (like obtaining a token), or the relationship with sibling tools like status/encoding. The description feels incomplete for a complex upload tool.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema—it reiterates that source can be local or remote, which is already in the schema. However, it implicitly links `uploadUrl` and `token` to `wecandeo_upload_create_token`, providing useful context. No additional semantic guidance on other 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 clearly states the verb 'Upload', the resource 'a video file', and the mechanism 'using a V4 upload token'. It also specifies that `source` can be a local path or remote URL, which distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like thumbnail or caption uploads.

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 that `uploadUrl` and `token` come from `wecandeo_upload_create_token`, which is only implied by the parameter descriptions in the schema. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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