Rate Video

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the schema: an explicit quota cost ("50 units") and that the action is performed as the authorized user, both of which affect how an agent should budget and target the call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the quota constraint. No filler, hedging, or restated title text; every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple three-parameter mutation, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Action, quota, and actor context are all present; only the absence of sibling routing (e.g., pointing to get_my_ratings for reads) leaves a small 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only restates the rating enum values, adding minor value by clarifying that "none" clears an existing rating rather than applying a neutral one.

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 states a specific verb (rate: like/dislike/clear) against a specific resource (a video) and clarifies the three rating outcomes, so an agent immediately knows the effect. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling such as get_my_ratings (the read counterpart), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"as the authorized user" implies this operates on the caller's own account, and the rating values enumerate the intended actions, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like get_my_ratings for reading existing ratings, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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