switch_owned_video_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that selection happens "through normal visible UI" and is limited to "once per line/page," but says nothing about what changes, whether the action is reversible, what permissions or state are required, or how failures behave.

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 a single compact sentence with no obvious padding, so it is not verbose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, and several terms are left unexplained rather than front-loaded with useful detail.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with one required ambiguous parameter, no annotations, and many closely related sibling tools, the description is not complete enough to let an agent invoke this confidently or understand its operational 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% for the single required "line" parameter. The description repeats the concept but gives no format, allowed values, examples, or explanation of what identifies a line, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 has a verb ("Choose") and a resource ("observed public video line"), but the resource concept is opaque and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as control_owned_video or observe_video_question. An agent can infer it switches a video line but not precisely what that means in this domain.

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?

"Once per line/page" hints at a usage constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer how this relates to the many adjacent owned-video and course tools.

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