youtube_update_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states fields are updated partially ('Only provided fields are updated'), but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or side effects. It also notes 'tags replaces existing tags' which is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotation coverage on a mutating tool.

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 efficient and well-organized, with a one-line summary followed by an Args list that mirrors the parameter layout. The 'Only provided fields are updated' note is valuable and concise. No wasted sentences, though the Args list partially duplicates schema field names.

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 6-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers all parameters with useful constraints but omits behavioral context like authentication prerequisites (there is a youtube_auth sibling suggesting auth is needed), error handling, or what response to expect. It's adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 fully compensate. It does describe each parameter (video_id, title, description, tags, category_id, privacy_status) with useful constraints: title max 100 chars, description max 5,000 chars, tags replaces existing tags, and enumerated privacy_status values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though tag format details are light.

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 'Update metadata for an existing video' with a specific verb (update) and resource (metadata for an existing video). It distinguishes itself from siblings like youtube_upload_video (creation) and youtube_get_video (retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, slightly reducing differentiation.

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 implies usage context through 'Only provided fields are updated; others remain unchanged' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like upload_video or delete_video. No exclusions or alternatives are named, only implied through the action being described.

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