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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it returns previous values so one more call restores them, tags replace rather than merge, a published video is immediately visible to members, and it needs a Cotlet API key with app access. These disclosures are consistent with destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true and go well past what the annotations state.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences carry distinct facts (undo semantics, tag replacement, visibility, auth). Slight redundancy between 'returns the previous values' and 'one call undoes it' and a verbose 'sends nothing to anyone' phrasing, but overall 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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update semantics, undo path, side effects on published content, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning: that only the fields sent are modified (partial update), and that the 'tags' field replaces the entire tag list rather than appending. That replacement-vs-merge clarification is not present in the 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?

States a specific verb (change/update) applied to a specific resource (a video) and enumerates exactly which fields are affected (title, description, tags, categories). This clearly separates it from uscreen_get_video, uscreen_upload_video, and uscreen_publish_video without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage context is implied through behavioral notes (only sent fields change, tags replace the whole list), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or naming of alternatives among siblings. An agent can infer it is a partial-update tool, but the definition never routes the agent against a competing tool.

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