Update Playlist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds two useful non-schema facts: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change') and a 51-unit quota cost. However it never explains the destruction the annotation warns about (overwriting title/description, or a privacy flip to public) or any permission requirement, so it stays at baseline-plus.

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, zero filler, with the core action and the partial-update guarantee front-loaded before the quota note. Every sentence 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still missing for a 6-param destructive mutation: ownership/auth expectations, the effect of each optional field being omitted, and consequences of changing privacy, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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 six parameters (title, privacy, language, playlist, my_channel, description) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Change one of your playlists'), which is enough for an agent to know it mutates an existing playlist. It lacks any differentiation from siblings such as create_playlist, delete_playlist, or update_video, and 'change' is looser than 'update', so it does not reach 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The only context given is the partial-update rule and a quota cost, neither of which tells an agent when this tool is the right choice over create_playlist or list_playlists.

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