bunny_update_video_library

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

The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether settings is a partial merge or full replacement, what the response looks like, error behavior, or the effect of omitting fields. The 'Common fields (PascalCase)' note hints at the API naming convention, but that is more parameter-related than behavioral. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with 'Update'), but the description fails to carry its share of the burden for a write operation.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The field enumeration is long but every item is information-bearing, since these are the only documented keys for the open-ended settings object. Each part earns its place.

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 two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the most critical need — the accepted field vocabulary — but leaves gaps: it does not state whether settings replaces or merges with existing configuration, what the response contains, or how invalid/unknown fields are handled. The 'Common fields' wording is also vague about whether more fields exist. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by enumerating roughly 25 known valid PascalCase field names for the settings object. This is especially useful because the schema declares settings as additionalProperties:{} with no property constraints, so the field vocabulary in the description is the only thing telling the agent what keys are accepted.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Update video library settings', which precisely identifies the operation. The enumerated field list (Name, CustomHTML, PlayerKeyColor, etc.) further scopes what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bunny_update_pull_zone, bunny_create_video_library, and bunny_get_video_library.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the verb 'update' plus the required 'id' parameter signals this is for modifying an existing video library, and sibling names like bunny_create_video_library and bunny_list_video_libraries suggest the alternatives. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that creation belongs to bunny_create_video_library, and no conditions for choosing this over related tools.

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