youtube_resolve_links

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

With no annotations or output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that multiple inputs are batched and the output is a set of candidates, but it does not explain how invalid links are handled, how search strings are interpreted, whether candidates are deduplicated or ranked, or what data each candidate contains.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately brief, though it leaves room for more behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

With no annotations or output schema and one undocumented parameter (`regionCode`), the description is too thin for an agent to know the expected return shape, error behavior, or how to set region-specific options. More detail about resolution behavior is needed.

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 compensate. It clarifies that `links` can be YouTube or YouTube Music URLs and search terms, but it never mentions the optional `regionCode` parameter or its effect on results.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve'), names the resource ('YouTube or YouTube Music links/searches'), and defines the output ('video candidates'). It clearly differs from sibling tools like youtube_search_videos or youtube_identify_track, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 input scope ('multiple links/searches') implies this is for resolving existing references rather than free-form discovery, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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