Push Video Message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Send a video') and reveals nothing about failure behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, delivery semantics, or what happens on invalid content. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste, action verb front-loaded. However, the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness — it's short because it omits useful context, not because it distills a rich description.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It lacks the push-vs-broadcast/multicast usage distinction that would help an agent choose correctly, and doesn't touch on content size limits or delivery constraints. The rich schema compensates for parameter coverage but not for behavioral and usage context.

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%, with rich per-parameter details (ID pattern ^[UCR], HTTPS/JPEG/PNG and HTTPS/MP4 format constraints, and the DEFAULT_UID fallback). Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable since 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 states a clear action ('Send a video') with an explicit target scope ('a LINE user, group, or room'). It distinguishes from the sibling message-type tools (push_text_message, push_image_message, etc.) by content type inherently. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling or clarify push-vs-broadcast/multicast mechanics, so it stops short of full 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when push is appropriate versus broadcast (broadcast_text_message, broadcast_flex_message) or multicast, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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