upload_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses supported formats, argument semantics, and the return shape, plus privacy values. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, quota costs, upload processing behavior, or potential side effects like immediate publication.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, remains compact, and every sentence adds useful information. No filler or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and a moderate parameter count, the description covers invocation essentials comprehensively. It could add guidance on prerequisites or quota impact, but is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 explicitly defines every parameter, provides an example for category_id ('22' for People & Blogs), and enumerates valid privacy_status values. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema field names.

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 action verb ('Uploads a video') and clearly specifies the source ('local file path') and destination ('YouTube channel'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_video or update_thumbnail.

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 purpose is clearly implied as the tool for uploading new videos, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update_video for editing existing videos) or exclusions. Context is present but not elaborated.

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