Upload video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: deduplication by content, max file size, allowed formats, async queueing, returned video ID, and variant constraints. This is substantial and actionable beyond anything in the JSON 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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: method, limits, dedup, workflow, attachment constraints, and input exclusivity. It is detailed without redundancy and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: upload method, size and format limits, dedup behavior, the polling flow, and downstream media constraints. An agent has enough information to invoke and integrate the result correctly.

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 filename, file_path, and content_base64 with mutual exclusivity. The description reinforces the 'exactly one source' rule and preference for file_path, but adds no meaningful new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Upload a product video via multipart/form-data and queue it for processing.' This immediately distinguishes it from generic file uploads and URL-based video imports, and the verb-object structure is unambiguous.

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 a clear workflow: upload exactly one source, poll with get_video until READY, then attach via media in create_variant/update_variant. It clearly defines the integration path. It does not explicitly name when to prefer upload_video_from_url or upload_file, but operational guidance is otherwise strong.

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