upload_to_youtube

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does it well: it surfaces OAuth, account ownership, default privacy, the COPPA flag, and the fact that any local path will be published to YouTube. It doesn't cover every side effect, such as return value or reversibility, but the meaningful behavioral cautions are present.

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?

Compact and well-organized: one-sentence purpose, then parameter-specific notes, then a deliberate safety note. No redundant language or restatement of the schema.

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?

For a state-changing external upload tool without annotations or output schema, it is fairly complete for invocation: auth, path, privacy, COPPA, and the intentional local-file behavior are covered. It lacks explicit return/behavior after upload and category_id semantics, but these don't block a correct basic call.

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 this description is the only semantic source for parameters. It explains tags format, privacy enum/default, and made_for_kids' COPPA implications. It leaves category_id unaddressed and doesn't elaborate on title/video_path, but those are relatively self-evident and the non-obvious parameters get meaningful definitions.

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 action ('Upload a finished video to YouTube') with the resource and auth context (OAuth), and adds a clarifying note that it uploads an arbitrary local path under the user's own account. This differentiates it from sibling pipeline tools such as image_to_youtube and meshy_to_youtube, which handle generated assets.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: the video must be finished, and any local path can be uploaded to the user's own YouTube account. It doesn't explicitly list sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the note about publishing videos made elsewhere implies the intended scope, so the context is clear.

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