codivupload-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what data is returned. For a tool that likely accesses external APIs, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it easy to parse while still conveying the essential purpose.

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 interacts with YouTube's API through integrations, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools suggesting complex media management operations, it should explain more about what 'integrations' means, what kind of playlists are returned, and how this differs from other playlist-related tools.

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 in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'profile_name'. The schema description 'Profile name' is already adequate, so the description doesn't need to compensate. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List YouTube playlists' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('YouTube playlists'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agency_playlists' or 'get_integrations_youtube_categories', which are also list operations on related resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a YouTube integration), comparison to similar tools (e.g., 'get_agency_playlists' for agency-specific playlists), or context about what 'integrations' refers to in the tool name.

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