wecandeo_video_modify_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, overwrite vs. append behavior, required permissions, error conditions, or side effects. This minimal transparency leaves the agent guessing.

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 short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place fully due to vagueness.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It omits how to identify the video, what happens with partial updates, return format, and error handling. The tool cannot be used safely without additional information.

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. However, the description adds nearly no meaning beyond listing parameter names; e.g., 'etc' and other fields are left as vague as the schema descriptions. The tool description does not clarify parameter usage or constraints.

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 it modifies metadata of a video and lists the fields, which gives a clear sense of purpose. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools beyond the name, and the identification of the video via accessKey is implied but not stated.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like wecandeo_video_modify_folder or when not to use it. Context for selecting the tool is absent.

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