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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is synchronous/blocking ('阻塞等待完成'), supports two upload methods, and includes polling and timeout parameters. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'enhance' entails (e.g., quality improvement, format conversion).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then listing upload methods and parameters. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter list could be more integrated into the flow rather than bullet-pointed.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the blocking behavior and upload methods, but lacks details on the enhancement process, output format (e.g., what is returned after completion), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex behavior, more context would be helpful.

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 beyond the schema by briefly mentioning the two upload methods, but doesn't provide additional semantics, constraints, or examples. Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '同步增强视频（阻塞等待完成）' which translates to 'enhance video synchronously (blocking wait for completion)'. It specifies the action (enhance video) and the blocking behavior, but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_task or get_task_status, which appear to be related to task management.

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 usage by detailing two upload methods (URL and local), which suggests when to use each type. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (create_task, get_task_status), such as for asynchronous vs. synchronous processing, or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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