youtube_delete_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the critical behavioral trait of irreversibility ('This action is irreversible'), which is the most important behavioral warning. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like auth requirements, whether confirmed/owned videos only can be deleted, permissions needed, or what happens to associated metadata/comments. The core destructive nature is disclosed but context around it is thin.

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 short and front-loaded with the key purpose in the first line, followed by the irreversibility warning. The Args section is minimal but useful. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args block is slightly redundant with the schema for a single param.

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?

For a single-param destructive tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the key warning (irreversibility). No output schema exists, but the description doesn't explain what a successful deletion returns, nor does it address edge cases (non-owned videos, already-deleted videos, auth requirements). Given it's a destructive operation with no annotations, more guidance on prerequisites (e.g., auth via youtube_auth) would improve completeness.

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 0%, and there's only one parameter. The description explains video_id as 'YouTube video ID to delete,' which adds semantic meaning by indicating the video must be the one being deleted. With only 1 param and 0% coverage, the description does compensate for the gap, though it could specify the format or where to find this ID.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Delete a video') with a clear subject. It distinguishes itself from siblings like youtube_update_video and youtube_upload_video by the deletion action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from youtube_remove_from_playlist which could be confused as a similar destructive action, though the name makes the video-tool target clear.

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 provides a clear context of use (deleting a video) but does not give explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusions. The irreversibility warning implicitly suggests caution use, but there's no statement about when one would choose this over related tools or any prerequisites like authentication.

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