Remove a video's keywords

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by stating precisely what is destroyed (only the named keywords, all other tags untouched), the catalog-level side effect (a keyword unused by any video is removed from the keyword list), that other videos keep the keyword, and the required Editor-role API key.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the sibling relationship, then scoping, then side effects and return/auth details. No filler sentences; every clause carries operational information.

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 output schema, the description still covers the return value ('what was removed and what did not match'), the auth prerequisite, the destructive scope, and the catalog side effect, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the comma-separated format and exact-name requirement. The description's 'name the keywords exactly as get_video_tags reports them' reinforces the source of truth but adds little beyond the schema, so it sits at the high-coverage baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove keywords from a video') and explicitly positions itself as 'the counterpart to tag_video', which disambiguates it from the sibling that shares a near-identical name.

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?

Gives a clear triggering scenario ('for undoing a tag that was added in error') and names the counterpart tool tag_video. It does not mention untag_scene, the scene-level sibling, so an agent working on scene tags gets no routing hint, but the primary when-to-use is unambiguous.

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