add_videos

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description still carries real behavioral weight: it discloses that videos download and are analysed asynchronously in the background, and that dry_run provides a non-committal preview before the real call. It omits whether the addition is reversible, any batch limits, or whether the creator must already exist (add_creator).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the selection modes, then the dry-run workflow, then the async caveat. Dense and every sentence contributes new information despite the somewhat run-on second sentence.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's scope, selection options, and async processing. What remains unstated for a write operation with zero annotations is the failure mode (unknown creator, no matches) and whether params combine or override each other.

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 0%, so the description has to do the work and largely does: 'top' is clarified as most-viewed ordering, 'match' as title-word matching with a literal example ('protein diet'), and 'video_ids' as explicit selection. The remaining gap is the interaction between the modes (are they mutually exclusive or combined?) and the expected format of 'creator'.

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 and resource ('Add more of a creator's videos to their brain') and immediately scopes it: the brain by default holds only the newest 30% plus top winners, with everything else sitting in the '<Name> - All Videos' note. That framing makes it clearly distinct from add_creator and search_brain without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the three selection modes (title-word match with an example, explicit video_ids, top=N) and prescribes a concrete workflow: dry_run=True to preview matches, then call again to commit. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative sibling (e.g. search_brain) for read-only lookup, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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