Video Enhancement MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the asynchronous nature and the two upload methods (URL and local with base64 conversion), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns (since there's no output schema).

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points explaining upload methods and parameters. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated rather than listed separately. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste.

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 tool's complexity (asynchronous operation with multiple upload methods), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the core functionality and parameters well, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, authentication, and how to monitor the asynchronous task (using the 'get_task_status' sibling).

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by briefly mentioning the two upload methods that correspond to the 'type' parameter values, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('创建视频增强任务' - create video enhancement task) and resource ('视频增强任务' - video enhancement task), specifying it's asynchronous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'enhance_video_sync' by explicitly mentioning the asynchronous nature, which is crucial for differentiation.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for asynchronous video enhancement) and implicitly distinguishes it from 'enhance_video_sync' (which would be synchronous). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the 'get_task_status' sibling for checking task completion, which would be helpful for complete guidance.

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