post_video_question

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

The description discloses a key behavioral aspect—the API cannot pin comments—which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only partially addresses it.

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 two sentences long, with no fluff or redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical limitation. Every word earns its place.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the dry_run parameter, return behavior, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., must be channel owner). The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (text, dry_run, video_id). The agent must infer from names alone. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, providing no guidance on expected format or behavior.

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 (post a top-level comment) and the resource (video as the channel), using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'top-level comment,' which implies it is not a reply, effectively differentiating from 'reply_to_comment'.

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: when you want to post a comment as the channel. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and alternatives like 'reply_to_comment' are not mentioned. The note about pinning is a limitation but does not direct when to choose this tool over others.

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