codivupload-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List Broadcasts' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 at just two words. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, though the place is minimal. This meets the criteria for maximum conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a listing operation with filtering parameters, the description 'List Broadcasts' is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'broadcast' is in this context, what the return format looks like, or how filtering works. For a tool with 4 parameters and sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, this minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (account_id, profile_id, status, limit) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Broadcasts' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'listyoutubebroadcasts'. It doesn't specify what kind of broadcasts (YouTube broadcasts) or provide any distinguishing characteristics from sibling tools. While the name implies YouTube broadcasts, the description itself adds no clarity beyond the name.

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 are multiple sibling tools that might relate to broadcasts (e.g., createyoutubebroadcast, post_integrations_youtube_broadcasts_id_stop), but the description doesn't help differentiate this listing tool from creation or control tools. No context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios is mentioned.

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