codivupload-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create YouTube playlist' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on failure. It mentions no output format or success indicators. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient phrase ('Create YouTube playlist') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.

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 the tool's complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective invocation.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors beyond the schema's 'default: public' for privacy, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 YouTube playlist' clearly states the action (create) and resource (YouTube playlist) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists' (read vs. write) and 'post_agency_playlists' (different resource scope), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, profile setup), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'post_agency_playlists' or 'createyoutubebroadcast'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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