media_completeStep 2 of attaching an image. Call it after the upload finishes. We check the file really landed before marking it ready. Only a ready media id can be passed to publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Media id from media_presign |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate it is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds that the tool verifies the file landed and flips the media to a ready state, which is useful. However, it lacks details on failure behavior, idempotency, or consequences of premature invocation, leaving some 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?
The description is three short sentences, each adding distinct value: context, usage timing, and behavioral outcome. No redundant wording or restating of the tool name; it is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
With 1 parameter, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description provides the core context: what, when, and effect. However, it omits mention of return values or error handling, which is a noticeable gap for a state-changing API. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The schema has full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Media id from media_presign'. The description reinforces the source of the id by referencing step 2 and media_presign in the schema, but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it rests at the baseline.
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 identifies this as 'Step 2 of attaching an image' with a specific role: finalizing the upload and marking the media ready. It distinguishes from siblings by its position in the sequence (after upload, before publish) and includes a concrete verb phrase 'check the file really landed before marking it ready.'
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call it after the upload finishes') and a prerequisite ('Only a ready media id can be passed to publish'). It does not explicitly compare with alternative steps like media_upload_status, but the sequential framing provides clear context.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions actively steer usage (e.g., get_post vs open_post, list_posts vs list_channel_posts). A few pairs like list_accounts vs select_channels or get_post vs open_post still require careful reading to pick the right one, but the overlap is manageable.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun (delete_post, get_insights, list_accounts, select_channels), which is consistent and predictable. A few bare-verb names like publish and reply, plus the media_* prefixed tools, break the strict pattern but still feel coherent within their subdomains.
20 tools is on the heavier side, but the breadth is justified by the server's scope: publishing, media upload workflows, reply threads, insights, quotas, and account selection. Each tool has a real job, though the four post-retrieval variants and five media tools could feel redundant at a glance.
The core lifecycle is well covered: publish, reply, delete, retry, retrieve, list, and get insights, plus multi-step media handling. Minor gaps exist, such as no general post editing, no delete-reply action beyond hiding, and limited scheduling outside YouTube, but these are not critical for the stated purpose.