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

The description discloses the ownership verification process, the 403 error containing the tag string, the impossibility of bypassing step 2, and the daily quota. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, etc.) and does not contradict them.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence provides essential procedural or restriction information, organized in clear numbered steps. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers usage, restrictions, error behavior, and quota, making it self-contained. With no output schema, it leads the agent through potential failure modes and prerequisites, and it is sufficiently complete for a complex tool.

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 only 40% (url and weight have descriptions). The description does not explain the semantics of tags, title, weight, or channel_id. It mentions URL restrictions but those are already in the schema, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 imports a YouTube video and explicitly restricts it to videos the OWNER uploaded themselves. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_video_from_url.

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?

It provides explicit when/when-not guidance: use only for owner's own videos, and it will not work for anyone else's. The tag verification steps and restrictions (public, no live/private, rate limits) further clarify appropriate usage.

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