metadata_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively reveals key operational traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Update'), has quota implications ('Quota Cost +1'), and is designed for YouTube videos. It doesn't cover error handling or response format, but provides more than basic functional description.

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 extremely concise with just three short phrases that each add distinct value: the core function, a usage hint, and a quota warning. There's zero wasted language, and the most critical information (the update action) is front-loaded, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers what the tool does and includes important operational details (quota cost, YouTube focus), but doesn't explain what the update actually achieves or what the response contains, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 ('Update') and the specific fields being updated ('viewCount, likeCount'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on YouTube video metadata distinguishes it from other tools like 'channel_videos' or 'search'.

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 by mentioning 'Useful for Live videos', which implies a specific scenario for this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites, leaving the guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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