update_video_metadata

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It never states that this is a mutating operation, whether it requires ownership/OAuth scopes or quota, or that omitted fields are left unchanged. Only the '(optional)' markers hint at partial-update semantics.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action, followed by a compact Args list. The Args block slightly duplicates parameter names but is justified given the total absence of schema descriptions.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are named. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits auth/quota requirements and exact partial-update behavior, leaving meaningful 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 0% and titles are bare ('Video Id', 'Tags'), so the Args block does real work: it identifies video_id as 'The YouTube video id to edit' and gives a format example for default_language ('en'). It covers all six parameters, though tags/category_id get only one-line restatements with no format detail.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update the metadata of an existing video'), which clearly separates it from siblings like upload_video, delete_video, and set_video_visibility. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as set_video_visibility or upload_video. The agent must infer that this is the tool for editing an existing video's descriptive fields.

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