POST variant of channel shorts. Requires a params continuation token from a prior GET response. Skip in daily smoke (no synthetic params).
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| token | No | ||
| params | Yes | ||
| forUsername | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite annotations indicating readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description accurately notes that it requires a continuation token and mentions bulk support. The description does not contradict annotations; in fact, it aligns with the read-only nature since it's likely a continuation of a GET request. It adds value by specifying the token requirement and bulk support, which are not in 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 very concise, with two sentences that convey key points without fluff. It front-loads the most critical information (POST variant and token requirement). The mention of skipping in daily smoke is an extra but valuable note.
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 complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description provides some essential context (token requirement, bulk support) but lacks details on parameter semantics and return behavior. It is adequate for a simple continuation tool but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional inference.
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 only mentions `params` and `ids`, but the schema includes 5 parameters with zero coverage. It doesn't explain the roles of `id`, `token`, or `forUsername`. The description adds some meaning for `ids` (batched execution) but fails to cover the other parameters, leaving the agent with limited understanding.
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 identifies this as the POST variant of channel shorts, which distinguishes it from the GET variant (youtube_channel_shorts). The verb 'post' and resource 'channel shorts' are specific, but it doesn't fully explain what posting entails (e.g., creating a new short?).
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 a critical precondition: requires a `params` continuation token from a prior GET response. It also provides an explicit exclusion for daily smoke tests ('Skip in daily smoke'), which is practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use POST vs GET or alternatives beyond the continuation token context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.