Youfiliate Smart Links

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavior: it checks all geo-rule URLs, returns health status, is rate limited, and explicitly states 'Does NOT modify the link configuration.' This substantially enriches the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 well-structured with the primary action first, followed by bullet-like lines for scope, return, rate limit, and non-modification. It then lists common errors. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what URLs are checked, rate limiting, errors, and the non-mutating nature. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not explain the id or response_format parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. Although the input schema itself has descriptions, the rule for low coverage requires the description to compensate, which it fails to do. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 action: 'Trigger a health check for a specific smart link.' This specifies the verb (trigger) and resource (smart link health check), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_smart_link or update_smart_link by focusing on health checking.

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 provides clear usage context: it checks default and geo-rule URLs, is rate limited to once per 5 minutes, and does not modify configuration. It also lists common errors. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool does NOT read or modify YouTube data, that the OAuth flow completes in the browser, and that only the authorization URL is returned. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, clarifying the side-effect profile and the division of responsibility between tool and user.

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 well-organized with a brief opening sentence, a clear explanation of user action, a note about non-effects, and a bulleted common error. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the operational flow, user responsibilities, side-effect clarity, and a likely error case. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not discuss the response_format parameter, but the input schema already provides a description and default for it. With schema coverage of the single parameter, the description adds no additional semantic value, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Initiate YouTube OAuth connection' and explains it returns a URL to open in the browser. This clearly identifies the tool's specific action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like disconnect or status check.

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 explains the user must open the returned URL, and the common error section states that if already connected, one should disconnect first using youfiliate_disconnect_youtube. This provides a clear 'when not to use' and an alternative, though it doesn't explicitly mention checking connection status beforehand.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses that it returns the created link details including the short URL, and lists common errors (slug taken, plan limit, invalid URL). This is useful behavioral context for a create operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a concise one-sentence purpose followed by a clear return-value note and a bulleted list of common errors. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 create operation with optional geo-targeting and deep-link config, the description covers creation, return value, non-modification, and error scenarios. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 highlights geo rules, custom slug, and deep linking, but the schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters. It doesn't mention redirect_type or response_format, though these are documented in the schema, so the description adds some context but not full compensation.

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 creates a new geo-targeted smart link with an optional custom slug. The verb 'Create' and resource 'smart link' are specific, and the phrase 'Does NOT modify any existing links' distinguishes it from update/delete tools.

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 implicitly says when to use (to create a smart link) and provides a clear exclusion ('Does NOT modify any existing links'), which steers toward update for modifications. Common errors give practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond this by disclosing permanent removal, short URL failure, slug reuse after a cooldown period, and common errors. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structured bullet points for important warnings and common errors. It is efficient, though the confirm requirement is repeated in the IMPORTANT section and the common-errors section.

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 destructive delete tool with an output schema and relevant annotations, the description fully covers effects, irreversibility, confirmation workflow, scope, cooldown behavior, and common errors. It is complete for an agent to decide and execute the 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?

The schema already documents `id` as a UUID and `confirm` as a required confirmation flag. The description reinforces the confirm workflow and mentions checking the ID in errors, but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema descriptions are already detailed, the baseline is adequate.

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 opens with 'Delete a smart link permanently. The short URL will stop working,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and direct consequence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, or get smart links.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: always confirm with the user, set confirm=true, and warns that deletion is irreversible. It also clarifies scope ('Does NOT affect other links or YouTube descriptions') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions compared to siblings.

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

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds crucial context: it removes stored OAuth tokens, does NOT modify YouTube data, and explains common errors such as 'not connected' and 'confirm=False'. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of consequences and edge cases.

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 well-structured with the main action first, followed by important warnings, effects/non-effects, and common errors in bullet form. Every line serves a purpose and the layout improves scannability.

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 destructive disconnect operation, the description covers prerequisites (user confirmation), effects (token removal), non-effects (no YouTube data modification), and failure cases. Since an output schema exists, return value details are unnecessary. The description is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter, confirm, is thoroughly explained: must be set to true, requires user confirmation, and the error case confirm=False is called out. This fully covers parameter semantics despite the schema coverage signal of 0%, because the description explicitly handles the parameter's meaning and required value.

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 'Disconnect your YouTube account from Youfiliate' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect_youtube. The purpose is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's function.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: always confirm with the user, set confirm to true, and notes the need to reconnect for auto-migration. It clearly implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools beyond this context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Does NOT modify any data' and lists the returned metrics (total clicks, top countries, devices, referrers), providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second enumerates return data, third confirms non-destructiveness. No fluff.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its safety profile. Combined with rich schema annotations, it is well-specified for an agent. It doesn't mention response_format's effect on output structure, but that's in the schema.

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 description coverage is 0% — the tool description mentions no parameters. The schema itself describes 'period' and 'response_format' with enums and defaults, but the description adds no additional meaning or guidance for parameter selection.

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 aggregates click analytics across all smart links with a specific verb+resource+scope. It says 'Get aggregate click analytics across all your smart links' and lists returned metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_smart_link_stats.

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 explicitly frames the tool as account-wide aggregate analytics, implying use when high-level trends across all links are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description explicitly says 'Does NOT modify any data' which is redundant but reinforces. It adds value by disclosing the return contents (videos processed, links created, errors) and a common error (not found) with resolution guidance, going beyond the annotations.

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 concise: two sentences plus a bullet for common errors. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately specifies safety ('Does NOT modify any data'). Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (read-only status check) with good annotations and a clear output schema. The description covers what data is returned, explicitly notes non-mutating behavior, and handles the common error case. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides clear descriptions for both 'id' (Migration UUID) and 'response_format' (markdown or json), so the description need not repeat them. However, the description itself does not mention parameter meanings; it only says 'specific migration', which hints at the id parameter. Given the schema's strong coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get the status and progress of a specific migration.' It identifies the resource (migration), the action (get status), and the scope (specific migration by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like youfiliate_list_migrations (list all migrations) and youfiliate_preview_migration (preview).

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 when you have a migration ID and need status. It provides a helpful alternative in the error case: 'use `youfiliate_list_migrations`'. However, it does not explicitly state 'when to use' vs. 'when not to use' beyond this troubleshooting hint, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying that it returns defaults for newly created smart links and reinforces that no data is created or modified, going slightly beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Three short, focused sentences. The description is front-loaded with purpose and adds only necessary context about scope and side effects. No wasted 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 read-only getter with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and that it has no side effects. Nothing significant 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?

The only parameter, response_format, is fully described in the input schema with its default and allowed values. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so with schema coverage effectively covering the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets current smart link preferences/defaults, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct enough from related tools like youfiliate_update_preferences.

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 provides clear context: it returns default settings applied to newly created smart links and explicitly states it does not modify data. This implies when to use it (to view defaults) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (geo rules, deep link config, click stats) and common error handling, going beyond the annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return details and common errors. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or padding.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, non-modification, return content, and error handling, and the output schema likely covers return values.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters: 'Smart link UUID' for id and 'Output format: markdown or json' for response_format. The description doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'full details of a single smart link by ID', clearly differentiating it from list, update, delete, and stats tools. It explicitly mentions 'Does NOT modify the link', distinguishing it from mutation tools.

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 states when to use it (to get full details by ID) and provides an alternative when the link is not found ('use youfiliate_list_smart_links'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_smart_link_stats, but the scope is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Does NOT modify any data'. It also discloses a common error (smart link not found), adding helpful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise (four short sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful error section. No waste or redundancy.

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 read-only stats tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides purpose, breakdowns, and a common error. It could mention the period parameter explicitly, but the schema covers that.

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 descriptions are present but the tool description itself provides no parameter details beyond mentioning 'specified period'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the agent to rely solely on 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets click analytics for a specific smart link and lists the breakdown dimensions (country, device, referrer, day). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_aggregate_stats, which suggests aggregate stats.

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 a single smart link but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It would benefit from noting that aggregate stats are available via get_aggregate_stats, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'Does NOT modify any data or initiate any connections,' which adds detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It also describes return values, but no rate limits or other behavioral traits are mentioned. The statement aligns with and reinforces the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses short, scannable paragraphs for returns and common errors. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and read-only. The description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to handle the main error case. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, response_format, is already well-documented in the input schema with a description, default value, and allowed values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema provides full coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks if a YouTube account is connected, which is a specific verb and resource. It also lists what it returns (connection status, channel name, scope information), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect/disconnect.

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 includes a common error scenario and directs users to an alternative tool ('use youfiliate_connect_youtube to connect') when not connected. This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the connection tool, though it could explicitly state when to choose this tool over other status-related tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior and confirms no data modification, but this mostly reinforces annotations. There is no contradiction, but limited additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second adds a safety clarification. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted 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?

Given the annotations (read-only, idempotent) and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It clearly states the paginated nature and non-destructive behavior. The only minor gap is no mention of default ordering or field details, but the output schema covers return values.

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 provides full descriptions for all parameters (limit, offset, response_format), so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions pagination generally but does not explain parameter syntax or add meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is effectively high, so description compensation is not required.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'YouTube description migrations.' It also mentions pagination, which distinguishes it from migration status or preview tools. This is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like get_migration_status and preview_migration.

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 listing migrations without modification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds explicit confirmation that it does not create or modify links, and it notes a common error when no links exist. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 contains redundancy, such as 'List your smart links' and 'Returns a paginated list of smart links,' which adds little value. It is otherwise structured with clear sections for arguments and common errors, but could be more concise.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers pagination, filters, non-mutation behavior, and common errors. The only notable omission is response_format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 top-level schema provides no description for the single 'params' object, but the description compensates by listing health_status, search, ordering, limit, and offset with basic semantics and ranges. It omits response_format, which is a minor gap. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists smart links with optional filtering, search, and pagination. It explicitly notes it does not create or modify links, distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools. The verb 'List' and resource 'smart links' are unambiguous.

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 provides some usage context, such as using filters to narrow results and stating non-mutation, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_smart_link. Usage is implied rather than directly prescribed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Does NOT modify any data or YouTube descriptions' and 'dry-run.' It adds an important prerequisite—requires a connected YouTube account—and a common error note, providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact: dry-run behavior, no data modification, account prerequisite, and a common error. There is minor redundancy between 'without making changes' and 'Does NOT modify,' but it remains appropriately sized.

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 preview/dry-run tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, safety, prerequisite, and an error case. It gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it appropriately, and the sibling tool names provide additional context for related operations.

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 tool description provides no parameter-level guidance; it does not mention auto_geo_rules, conversion_mode, or response_format. Although the input schema includes descriptions for these fields, the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, and the description fails to compensate by explaining how these options affect the preview.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview a YouTube description migration,' and immediately clarifies it is a dry-run analysis showing affected videos and links. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like youfiliate_start_migration and youfiliate_rollback_migration.

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 states that it performs a dry-run without making changes and requires a connected YouTube account, with a common-error note directing users to youfiliate_connect_youtube. It does not explicitly name youfiliate_start_migration as the alternative for actually executing a migration, so it stops short of full explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (e.g., destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that execution is asynchronous, it reverts all video descriptions, requires a connected YouTube account, and describes specific failure modes. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate side effects and errors.

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 well-organized: a clear one-sentence summary, an important warning, a note on async behavior and prerequisites, and a succinct bulleted list of common errors. Every sentence adds value, and the structure improves scannability.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (connected account), execution model (async), required user confirmation, irreversible effect, and common error conditions. The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented. This is complete for a rollback 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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both 'id' and 'confirm', including the confirmation warning. The description adds value by reiterating the confirm=False error and reinforcing the confirmation requirement, but largely relies on the schema. Since schema coverage is effectively high, the slight additional clarification earns a 4.

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 with a specific verb ('Roll back'), the target resource ('a completed migration'), and the effect ('restoring original YouTube descriptions'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_migration or preview_migration and any other operation.

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 provides clear context: confirm with user, requires connected YouTube account, and lists common errors including rollback-ineligible states and the need to set confirm=True. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool and what prerequisites must be met.

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

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

The description discloses destructive behavior (modifies YouTube descriptions), asynchronous execution, authentication requirements, and typical failure modes. Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical context around user confirmation and error handling, going beyond the structured metadata.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with the main purpose and critical warning in the first lines, followed by async behavior, requirements, and errors in a scannable format. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the bullet-point error list improves readability.

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?

The description covers the essential context: purpose, confirmation workflow, async tracking, authentication, and common errors. It references 'the preview' implying youfiliate_preview_migration, though not naming it explicitly. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed, making the description largely complete.

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 does not explain the parameters auto_geo_rules, conversion_mode, or response_format, and only indirectly touches on confirm through the common error 'confirm=False: must set confirm=True after user confirmation.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for parameter-level details that the input schema alone provides.

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 explicitly states 'Start a YouTube description migration to convert links to smart links,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like youfiliate_preview_migration, youfiliate_get_migration_status, and youfiliate_rollback_migration.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: confirm with the user, describe the scope from the preview, and set confirm=True. It names the prerequisite (connected YouTube account), specifies the tracking tool (youfiliate_get_migration_status), and lists common errors with corrective actions, all of which help an agent decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, not destructive), the description adds key behavioral context: changes are not retroactive and no data is deleted. It also mentions common errors with redirect_type, enhancing transparency for the agent.

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 brief and well-structured: purpose first, then scope/safety, then error tips. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions in the schema, the tool description is sufficient. It could optionally mention that all parameters are optional, but the schema's defaults and nullability already convey this. Overall, it covers the necessary context.

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 description coverage is 0% in the tool description, but the input schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds a useful constraint for redirect_type ('301' or '302'), but does not compensate for all parameters. However, the schema carries the semantic load, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 updates smart link preferences/defaults, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_preferences (read) and update_smart_link (updates a specific link) by using 'preferences/defaults'.

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 explicitly says changes apply only to newly created links, which clarifies when to use this tool versus alternatives for modifying existing links. It also notes it does not delete data, but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral details: partial updates, geo rules are replaced entirely rather than merged, and it does not delete the link. It also lists common error scenarios, which helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a compact list of updatable fields, and a concise error section. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 complex update tool with nested schema definitions, the description provides essential behavioral context (partial update, geo replacement, common errors). It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning the response_format parameter or returning value details, but the output schema and annotations fill most 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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description compensates by enumerating the updatable fields (destination URL, slug, title, redirect type, geo rules, deep link config). However, it omits the response_format parameter and does not explicitly state that id is required, though the common error bullets imply this.

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 opens with 'Update an existing smart link (partial update — only provided fields change)', which clearly states the action and resource. It also lists the specific fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from create/delete/list sibling tools.

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 modifying existing links by defining partial-update behavior and listing common errors. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_smart_link), but the context is sufficient for appropriate tool selection.

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