update_video

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

With no annotations, the description clearly states the partial update behavior ('only supplied fields change; others are preserved'), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or error conditions like requiring the video to exist.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word adds value.

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 description explains the core behavioral concept (partial update) but lacks context for specific parameters like 'dry_run' (testing behavior) and does not mention return values or side effects. Adequate for a simple update but incomplete given 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 adds no specific information about parameters beyond their names. The agent must infer meaning from names like 'dry_run' or 'privacy', but the description does not clarify formats, allowed values, or purpose.

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 'Update video metadata' and the resource 'video', with the key behavior 'Only supplied fields change; others are preserved'. This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_video (create) and delete_video (delete).

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 implies usage for updating video metadata but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., batch_update_descriptions for bulk updates) or when not to use it. Lacks exclusion criteria.

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