codivupload-mcp

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 but fails completely. 'Create Broadcast' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'create' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a tool that creates YouTube broadcasts with 7 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is severely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value to justify their inclusion as a complete description.

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 tool that creates YouTube broadcasts with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a broadcast is in this context, what happens after creation, how it differs from other media creation tools, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the context needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. Since the schema does all the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context about how parameters interact or their business significance.

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 'Create Broadcast' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of broadcast (YouTube), what resources are involved, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'listyoutubebroadcasts' or 'post_integrations_youtube_broadcasts_id_stop'. While the tool name suggests YouTube, the description itself provides no clarification.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to YouTube broadcasts (listyoutubebroadcasts, post_integrations_youtube_broadcasts_id_stop) and media creation (createpost, uploadmedia), but the description offers no context about when this specific broadcast creation tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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