wecandeo_video_add_to_package

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

The description discloses the side effect of triggering encoding and URL issuance, which is helpful for an agent to understand consequences. However, it lacks details on whether the operation is immediate or asynchronous, idempotent, or what permissions are required. Since no annotations are provided, the description partially fills the transparency gap.

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, using a single sentence with a parenthetical to convey the core action and side effect. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it is efficient, it may be too brief to fully inform the agent.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or follow-up steps (e.g., checking encoding status). The side effect mention adds some completeness, but more context is needed for safe autonomous use.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('accessKey' and 'packageId') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Add a video to a distribution package') and mentions a side effect ('triggers encoding / URL issuance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'exclude_from_package' and 'list_package', but could be more explicit about the association role.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., video must be uploaded, package must exist), or conditions for invocation. The description only implies usage context through the action.

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