upload_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses quota cost, that publish_at forces privacy_status to private, and that made_for_kids is a legal COPPA declaration. These are non-obvious behavioral traits beyond a simple upload action.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds quota cost, parameter constraints, and category examples in a logical order. Every sentence adds value and none simply repeats schema information.

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?

The description covers many important operational details, but with no annotations and no output schema it still leaves gaps: it does not describe the response/return value, file_path format or location requirements, or error/auth failure modes. For an 8-parameter upload tool, this is a noticeable but not fatal omission.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It usefully explains privacy_status values, publish_at format and interaction, made_for_kids implications, and common category_id values. It does not explain file_path, title, description, or tags, but those are relatively self-explanatory.

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 first sentence, 'Upload a video file to the authorized channel,' identifies a specific verb, resource, and scope. It is unambiguous and clearly differentiates from siblings like update_video or set_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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool for uploading and provides parameter-level guidance like scheduling via publish_at. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when schedule_video or update_video would be more appropriate.

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