get_next_video_briefReturns a brief for the channel's next upload — format, length, title shape and posting day — derived from what already outperformed on that channel. Use this when asked what someone should make or publish next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | A YouTube channel: @handle, channel URL, channel id (UC…), or the channel name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the brief is derived from channel performance ('derived from what already outperformed'). It also reveals what the brief includes, giving the agent expectations beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and concrete output fields. The second sentence gives usage guidance without padding. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. Given the low complexity and complete schema, no further information is necessary.
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% for the single 'channel' parameter, including accepted formats (@handle, URL, ID, name). The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already handles this fully, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns a brief') with a clear resource (the channel's next upload) and enumerates the exact content (format, length, title shape, posting day). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_patterns and suggest_ab_test by its focus on a concrete actionable brief rather than analysis or suggestions.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when asked what someone should make or publish next.' This provides clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage instruction is sufficient for the scope of this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of YouTube growth: audit gives an overall score, monetization tracks subs/views, patterns analyzes channel-specific performance, brief creates a next-video plan, and ab test suggests title experiments. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (audit, check, get, get, suggest), using clear action words and camelCase separation. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a YouTube growth server, covering assessment, progress tracking, pattern analysis, planning, and experimentation without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool set covers a complete growth workflow: audit status, check monetization, identify patterns, plan next video, and test improvements. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for tracking changes over time or comparing across channels, but the core domain is well covered.