ytptube_update_preset

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

While annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, the description adds context that only non-default presets can be replaced and that it follows a PUT contract. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing downloads) or other behavioral details, so the added value is modest.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and free of filler. It earns its place by stating the core action and a key constraint, though a bit more detail could be added without losing conciseness.

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 tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the expected response, any side effects, or how the 'preset' object should be structured beyond what the schema fields imply. This leaves important gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 the description provides no parameter details beyond what the schema already exposes. It does not explain the meaning of 'preset' fields like folder, cookies, or template, leaving the agent to guess based on field names. This falls short of compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool replaces a non-default download preset, using the verb 'Replace' and specifying the resource and a key constraint (non-default). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_preset and patch_preset by implying full PUT replacement semantics.

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?

Usage context is implied through 'Replace' and 'PUT contract', suggesting full updates rather than partial patches, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus patch_preset or create_preset. No clear exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate usage from the wording.

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