POST variant of channel videos. Requires a params continuation token captured from a prior GET response — used to fetch deeper pages or filtered shelves that the GET surface can't address. 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: needing a prior GET token, the limitation of the GET surface, smoke-test exclusion, and batched execution. No contradiction with 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?
Two tight paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value—usage guidance, token requirement, smoke exclusion, and bulk support—with no redundancy or 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?
Given no output schema, minimal schema descriptions, and moderate parameter complexity, the description covers the core usage scenario well and provides operational guardrails. The only gap is the undefined parameters beyond `params` and `ids`, which prevents a 5.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `params` (continuation token) and `ids` (bulk execution), but leaves `id`, `token`, and `forUsername` unexplained. Partial compensation for a five-parameter 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?
Description opens with 'POST variant of channel videos', clearly identifying the resource and operation. It further distinguishes from the sibling GET tool by noting it fetches deeper pages or filtered shelves the GET surface can't address.
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 when to use: requires a `params` continuation token from a prior GET response to fetch deeper pages/filtered shelves. Also gives a when-not-to-use: 'Skip in daily smoke (no synthetic params).' Mentions bulk support via ids as an additional usage mode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.