upload_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions resumability and the privacy/publish_at relationship, but omits important behaviors such as overwrite policy, error handling, idempotency, or authentication requirements.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices completeness; a slightly longer description with more parameter details would be better.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only privacy and scheduling. It lacks information on return values, error scenarios, file constraints, and required permissions, making it highly incomplete.

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?

Only 2 out of 7 parameters (privacy and publish_at) receive any semantic explanation, and even those are brief. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it fails to explain tags, dry_run, file_path, title, or description.

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 verb 'Upload' and the resource 'a video', and adds the important qualifier 'resumable'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_video' or 'delete_video'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no mention of constraints like file size or format. The scheduling note is helpful but not sufficient for usage context.

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