Give a video a branded, human-friendly custom URL slug for sharing. Returns the updated video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes | Video id or uniqueId. | |
| custom_url | Yes | The desired URL slug (must be unique). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only mentions that it 'Returns the updated video' but omits critical behaviors such as what happens if the custom URL is already taken (the schema says 'must be unique' but the description does not address this) or whether the operation is reversible.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and return value without unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. However, it could briefly mention the uniqueness constraint or error scenarios for completeness.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply rephrases the parameter purpose without providing additional constraints or examples.
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 that the tool sets a custom URL slug for a video to make it branded and human-friendly for sharing, and distinguishes it from sibling access tools like set_password and remove_password.
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 usage for sharing videos with a custom slug but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other access or video editing tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
