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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true only, so the description's disclosure that unlisted fields are left intact is genuinely useful context that tempers a naive full-replacement assumption. It still does not say what the call returns, whether changes are immediately applied, or whether permissions beyond a normal API key are needed.

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?

Four short fragments with the operation type front-loaded as 'WRITE', the mutation target next, and the partial-update rule before the endpoint. No sentence is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with only a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the write nature and partial-update behavior are covered, but response shape, side effects on linked resources, and error/permission conditions are absent.

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 100%, so every one of the 8 parameters is documented in the schema, including the replacement semantics of tags and metadata. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (update), resource (video), scope (existing video), and the exact HTTP operation (PATCH /videos/{videoId}). This inherently separates it from apivideo_create_video, apivideo_delete_video, and apivideo_get_video, so an agent can route to it without opening a 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?

'Only the provided fields are changed' implies partial-update usage, and the leading 'WRITE' flags it as a mutation. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., create vs update vs delete) is given, leaving routing to inference.

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