wecandeo_upload_video_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (percentage and bytes) but does not detail idempotency, polling behavior, or when progress reaches 100%. Could be more transparent about calling constraints.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, making it ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 simple polling tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (returns progress and bytes). It is mostly complete, though it could mention polling suitability or eventual termination.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'token', which is explained. The description adds a small extra context (token origin) but does not significantly enrich beyond the schema.

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 tool checks upload progress by token and specifies the return values (0-100% process and byte counters). It directly distinguishes from siblings like wecandeo_upload_video_status by focusing on progress.

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 implies it should be used after wecandeo_upload_create_token by referencing it, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wecandeo_upload_video_status. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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