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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'with tenant checks' adds genuinely new behavioral context about authorization scoping, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the previously configured provider/video, whether the tenant check failure mode is an error, or any side effects of switching providers.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why key parameter semantics are missing rather than a sign of completeness.

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?

An output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so those need not be in the description. But for a six-parameter mutation with conditional requirements (scope-driven segmentId, provider-driven video identifier), the description leaves too much for the agent to guess. The tenant-check mention is the only real added 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 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the semantics and largely does not. The critical conditional relationship — that segmentId is presumably required when scope='segment', and that bunnyVideoId versus videoUrl depends on the chosen videoProvider — is left entirely unstated. Only the webinar/segment scope distinction is echoed from the enum.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (webinar or segment video provider details), and names the two scopes. An agent can tell this apart from the many sibling update_* tools because the resource is narrow. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling alternative, but the purpose itself 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never says, for example, that this should be used to switch a webinar from YouTube to Bunny, or that segment scope is only valid for segment-based webinars. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the schema enums.

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