Ytdlp Split Chapters

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

The description discloses the main behavior (download and split) consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). But it does not elaborate on side effects like file storage locations, naming conventions, or network usage. Annotations already provide basic behavioral flags.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and usage condition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 high complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It omits any usage examples, parameter semantics, or reference to the output schema, which leaves the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 explanation for the 13 parameters, many with nested properties. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, offering no guidance on how to use parameters like auth, format, output, etc.

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 tool downloads a media URL and splits it into one file per chapter, with specific usage condition for creating separate chapter files. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by the chapter-splitting functionality.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user asks to create separate chapter files or segment a chaptered video,' providing a clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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