Ytdlp Update Archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool returns a plan without writing, aligning with annotations. It provides extra context about the recommendation nature, though could elaborate on plan content.

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?

Two sentences: first states core function, second provides usage preference. No extraneous content, front-loaded with key information.

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 readOnly annotations and output schema existence, description adequately conveys non-destructive planning behavior. However, it lacks detail on what the plan contains and how it relates to sibling archive tools (check, inspect), leaving partial ambiguity for an agent.

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 has two parameters (archivePath required, entry optional) with 0% coverage in schema descriptions. Description adds no information about these parameters, leaving the agent with only names and types. With low coverage, description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a safe archive-update plan and recommendation without writing. It uses specific verb 'return' and resource 'archive-update plan', clearly distinguishing from download tools that write the archive.

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 advises to prefer downloadArchive on download tools for writing canonical extractor IDs, indicating when not to use this tool. However, it does not differentiate from sibling archive tools like ytdlp_inspect_archive or ytdlp_check_archive, missing explicit usage context for those alternatives.

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