Turn off password protection for a video. Reverts to the public playback id so the video plays without a password again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes | Video id or uniqueId. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavioral effect: 'Reverts to the public playback id so the video plays without a password again.' This adequately discloses the result of the action.
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 a single sentence of 24 words, conveying the action and effect with zero wasted words. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the action and result. Minor gaps include missing prerequisites or error conditions, but these are not critical for this straightforward operation.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description of video_id as 'Video id or uniqueId.' The parameter semantics are entirely covered by the input schema.
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's purpose: 'Turn off password protection for a video' with the specific verb 'Turn off' and resource 'password protection'. It distinguishes from siblings like viddler_access_set_password by describing the opposite action.
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 implies when to use (to remove password protection) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling names offer context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.
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 specific action on a distinct resource (access, analytics, feedback, videos). There is no overlap; for example, password protection and custom URL are clearly separate access tools.
All tools follow the pattern `viddler_<category>_<verb>_<noun>` with consistent snake_case. Categories are logical (access, analytics, feedback, videos) and verbs are appropriately descriptive (remove, set, get, list, create, etc.).
12 tools is a reasonable number for a video management server. The set is scoped to core operations, not bloated. A few more could be added (e.g., delete), but the count is appropriate for the domain.
The tool set covers upload, registration, retrieval, listing, and metadata updates, but lacks a delete video tool. This is a notable gap for a video management server. Other missing operations like trash or restore are not critical, but delete is a basic lifecycle operation.
