Ytdlp Plan Postprocess

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and the description adds concrete behavioral details: dry-run, no file writing, generates explanation of ffmpeg requirements, output policy, risks, side effects. This adds significant context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 conveys the core idea efficiently. However, it could be improved by breaking into multiple sentences or bullet points for readability, especially given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention the return value or what the plan looks like. With 8 complex parameters and 0% schema documentation, the description fails to guide the agent on how to invoke the tool correctly. It only covers the high-level purpose, leaving a significant completeness gap.

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 provides no information about the 8 parameters (url, auth, format, output, network, inputFile, postprocess, sponsorblock). All parameters are objects with many nested properties, and the description fails to explain what each parameter controls or how to use them. This is a critical 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?

Description clearly states the tool is a dry-run for post-processing without writing files, distinguishing it from sibling tools that actually perform actions like remux or recode. It lists specific post-processing actions (remux, recode, audio extraction, embedded assets, chapters, SponsorBlock) making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use to explain ffmpeg requirements, output policy, risks, and side effects' which indicates when to use it. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools that perform actual downloads/post-processing provides clear alternatives, and the dry-run nature implicitly excludes actual execution.

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