Ytdlp Validate Options

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining it validates input and exposes the catalog without executing, which aligns perfectly with annotations and adds value.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is relatively sparse. It does not mention that the tool returns validation results or the option catalog, nor does it clarify how validation works. The output schema exists but is not referenced. Some additional context would be helpful.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it only vaguely mentions 'typed yt-dlp option input.' It does not explain any of the 13 parameters, their purposes, or how they relate to yt-dlp options, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema names.

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 it validates yt-dlp option input and exposes the option catalog. The verb 'validate' and resource 'option input' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings that actually execute or download by noting 'without executing yt-dlp'.

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 to answer whether a flag or option is supported without executing yt-dlp,' which tells when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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