youtube_reporting_create_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that reports generate daily and take 24-48 hours to appear, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the job is immediately active on creation, whether an existing job with the same report_type would conflict, or whether this requires specific auth states/permissions. The behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds timing expectations and Args documentation. Every sentence adds value. The Args section is a slight formatting departure but appropriate for Python-docstring style. No wasted words.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry substantial weight. It covers the core purpose and timing but lacks detail on what the response contains (job ID? status?), potential error cases (what if report_type_id is invalid?), and lifecycle after creation. For a state-changing scheduling tool, more detail on expected return and failure modes would be warranted.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains both parameters: report_type_id is clarified as coming from youtube_reporting_list_types, and name is described as optional and human-readable. This adds moderate value beyond the raw schema. However, 'report_type_id' is still somewhat underspecified about the exact format/expected value, though the pointer to list_types helps.

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 ('Schedule a reporting job') identifying the resource and action clearly. It distinguishes this from siblings like youtube_reporting_list_jobs and youtube_reporting_download by implying creation/scheduling rather than listing or downloading, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 explains the timing behavior (24-48 hours for first report) which sets expectations for when results appear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like youtube_reporting_list_jobs, nor does it clarify prerequisites (e.g., must an auth exist first? Must report_type_id come from list_types?). The mention that report_type_id comes 'from youtube_reporting_list_types' is a weak pointer but not a full guideline.

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