youtube_upload_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the quota cost (1,600 units), the private-by-default behavior, and the publish_at/privacy_status dependency. This adds meaningful behavioral context about cost and side effects that an agent needs to know before invoking. Could mention auth requirements but is otherwise strong.

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 tightly structured with an opening summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place - the quota cost and default privacy are high-value facts, and the parameter annotations are one line each with no fluff. Well front-loaded.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: defaults, constraints, and the scheduling dependency. It could add what the function returns (e.g., video ID) and auth requirements, but the core usage is well specified. Minor gaps only.

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 entirely. It does: each parameter gets a clear one-line explanation, including value constraints (title max 100 chars, description max 5,000, default category ID meaning, valid privacy_status values, and the publish_at requires private constraint). This is exactly the semantic depth the schema lacks.

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 verb+resource: 'Upload a video to YouTube.' It distinguishes from siblings like youtube_update_video (update existing) and youtube_set_thumbnail (set visual), making the purpose unambiguous. The scope is fully defined.

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 core behavior (private by default, 1,600 quota cost) and notes the publish_at scheduling constraint, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or list prerequisites (e.g., needs youtube_auth first). No when-not-to-use guidance is given, though for an upload tool the context is moderately inferable.

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