update_creators

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 that items are queued (a side effect), that processing is asynchronous ("appears in search as it finishes processing"), and that the operation is cheap and auto-scheduled daily. It omits what happens with an unknown creator or how many videos might be queued, so it stops just short of full disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the cost and async behavior following. No filler, though the second sentence mixes two unrelated facts (cost/schedule and search visibility) somewhat loosely.

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 async processing caveat is covered. The remaining gap is the creator identifier format, which matters for correct invocation of a 0%-coverage parameter.

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% for the single nullable parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the null case ("or all of them"), but never says what form the creator value takes (name, handle, ID, URL), leaving the key ambiguity unresolved.

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 concrete verb and resource: check a creator (or all) for new videos and queue anything new. This is clearly a polling/refresh operation, which implicitly separates it from add_creator and add_videos, but the siblings are never named so the differentiation stays inferential.

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?

"Cheap and quick; it also runs automatically about once a day" implies manual calls are optional and low-cost, which is useful context. However, it never states when a manual refresh is warranted versus using add_videos or add_creator, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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