Check YouTube Authentication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by clarifying that it checks for OAuth configuration and credentials specifically for write operations, which provides context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Check if OAuth is configured') and includes essential context ('for write operations'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it. It could slightly improve by specifying the return format or error conditions, but it adequately covers the tool's role in the context of sibling authentication tools.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the input structure. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, as none are needed, and instead focuses on the tool's functional intent, which is sufficient for this case.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check if OAuth is configured' and 'we have valid credentials') and identifies the resource ('write operations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'youtube_getAuthUrl' and 'youtube_startAuth' by focusing on verification rather than authentication initiation.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for write operations,' suggesting this tool should be used before attempting write actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as checking authentication status separately from other tools.

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