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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the free tier behavior and upload eligibility, but does not detail output format, storage duration, or other lifecycle aspects. The description adds value beyond annotations but remains incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core functionality with specific deliverables; the second clarifies tier differences. Information 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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose, tier distinctions, and output components. However, it omits details about the return format and does not explain the titleHint parameter, leaving minor gaps.

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 description lists output components (title variants, script, etc.) which indirectly explains the tool's scope, but does not add detail for undocumented parameters like titleHint. Schema coverage is 67%, so description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 it generates a full video draft including title variants, description, tags, script, thumbnail prompt, and estimated duration for a given topic. It differentiates from the sibling tool youtube_upload_video by specifying tier-based upload eligibility.

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?

Explicitly states the tool's purpose and notes that free tier does NOT upload while Pro/Studio drafts are eligible for youtube_upload_video, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus the upload sibling. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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