batch_update_descriptions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses quota usage per changed video (~51 units), that append mode skips videos already containing the text, and that footer mode adds a marker if missing. These behaviors are not obvious from the schema.

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 very concise, using bullet-style for modes and front-loading the overall purpose. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior well: modes, scope, quota, and edge cases like missing markers. It does not explain return values or errors, but these are often implicit for batch operations.

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 explains mode, text, find, and video_ids (scope), but does not mention the dry_run parameter. Thus, one out of five parameters is undocumented, leaving a 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 states the tool updates descriptions across many videos, specifying three distinct modes (append, footer, replace) and scope (video_ids or all uploads). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_video (which likely updates a single video) and list_videos.

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 explains when to use each mode (e.g., footer for links/giveaway, append for adding text without duplication, replace for find/replace). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the mode-specific guidance is clear enough for selection.

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