youtube_remove_from_playlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a removal operation (implying mutation) and clarifies that the correct parameter is playlist_item_id, not video ID. However, it doesn't disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether auth is required via youtube_auth), error conditions, or consequences of removal. For a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would help.

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 compact at roughly 3 lines including Args. It's front-loaded with the action statement and uses a clean Args section. The 'not the video ID' clarification is efficient and earns its place. Slightly under-specified but 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?

The description is accessible for a single-parameter tool, and the schema is minimal. It covers the key pitfall (playlist_item_id vs video ID) and points to a way to find the ID. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of return/error behavior, it leaves the agent guessing about outcomes (e.g., success indication, error on invalid ID). For a mutating operation, this is a moderate 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?

The description explicitly adds meaning to the single parameter by warning that playlist_item_id is 'not the video ID', which is valuable semantic clarification beyond what the schema provides (which only labels it 'Playlist Item Id'). However, schema coverage is 0%, and while the description helps, it could elaborate more on how to obtain and verify a valid playlist_item_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 clearly states the action ('Remove a video from a playlist') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it works on playlist_item_id rather than video ID. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the parallel 'youtube_add_to_playlist' sibling or clarify nested semantics beyond the ID distinction.

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 tells the agent where to find the required ID ('Use youtube_list_playlists or the Data API to find the playlist_item_id'), which is helpful usage context. It clearly distinguishes the playlist_item_id from the video ID, preventing a common error. It doesn't mention when to use this vs alternatives, but the tool is fairly unique in its purpose.

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