Add Mod Video (author)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement (author's web session) and implying the operation mirrors the editor UI. It does not describe failure modes or side effects, but given annotation coverage, a 3 is fair.

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 exactly two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated efficiently. No redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and only partial schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits behavior on invalid URLs, duplicate videos, or the response format. While annotations cover safety, they do not cover operational details. The tool would benefit from explaining the dry_run option and what a successful add looks like.

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 only 33%, meaning most parameters (title, mod_id, description) lack documentation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not compensate for the low coverage. For example, it does not clarify that 'title' is a required display name or that 'description' is optional. This is a significant gap.

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 action: 'Add a YouTube video to YOUR mod's Videos tab'. It identifies the resource (mod's Videos tab) and the verb (add), and distinguishes it from sibling delete_mod_video by implying the inverse operation. The phrase 'as the mod editor does' anchors it to a known UI action.

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 description states a key prerequisite: 'Needs the author's web session', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (only for the mod author). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (like delete_mod_video) or state when not to use it, leaving the routing to inference.

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