setup_youtube_oauth

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says it 'sets up' OAuth and returns a dict. It doesn't explain whether user interaction is required, whether credentials are stored, whether it initiates a redirect, or how it interacts with the complete_youtube_oauth step. This leaves the agent with significant unknowns about side effects and required next steps.

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 short and readable, but it includes a docstring-style Args/Returns structure that is largely redundant with the schema. It front-loads the purpose statement, which is good, but the parameter descriptions are simply restated names with 'Google OAuth2' prefix, adding little. It could be more concise by omitting the repetitive parameter lines.

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?

The tool has an output schema (mentioned in context), so return details aren't required, but the description lacks critical context for an OAuth setup flow: it doesn't mention that user authorization might be needed, whether it generates a URL, or that complete_youtube_oauth is the next step. Given the complex OAuth flow and the presence of sibling tools, this description is incomplete for an agent to correctly orchestrate the authentication process.

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?

The schema lists client_id and client_secret with types, and the description merely repeats them as 'Google OAuth2 Client ID' and 'Google OAuth2 Client Secret', which adds almost no new meaning. Schema coverage is 0% because the description doesn't elaborate on format, validation, or usage. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, providing only marginal value over the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('setup') and resource ('YouTube OAuth2 authentication') with a qualifier ('首次认证' = first-time authentication), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_youtube_oauth and refresh_youtube_token. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives or explain the distinction beyond the 'first-time' hint, so it's not a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_youtube_oauth or refresh_youtube_token. The phrase '首次认证' implies it's for initial setup, but there is no mention of prerequisites, flow order, or when to choose a different tool. The agent is left to infer the usage context.

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