youtube_video

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., that playback may replace current media, or that YouTube must be installed). It does not contradict annotations, and the bar is lower since annotations are present, but the description adds no extra value beyond the plain action.

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?

A single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. No filler or redundant phrasing; it is appropriately compact for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and schema together fully specify how to call it. It lacks only minor details like behavior on invalid URLs, but those are not essential for correct invocation. The overall context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, and the tool description merely restates the parameter format already given in the schema ('URL youtube ou ID de video'). No additional meaning, constraints, or examples are provided, so the description does not go beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 specific action ('Lance YouTube sur une video specifique') with a clear resource (YouTube video) and specifies the input format (URL or ID). This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from the sibling device-control tools, none of which target video playback specifically.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent knows when to use it: whenever a specific YouTube video needs to be launched. There are no conflicting sibling tools for playing videos, so no alternative is needed. While explicit 'when not to use' guidance is absent, the context is self-evident given the tool's unique role.

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