Comment on a video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: the comment is public to anyone who can watch the video, a plan requirement exists, and a user-confirmation gate is mandated. It does not address duplicate posting or what is returned, but the key side-effect profile is disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the plan gate, then the action, then the safety workflow. The adjacent sentences about showing the user the change and passing the approved text are slightly redundant but each carries a distinct instruction, so there is little waste.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers access gating, visibility, confirmation, and the default target video. Only the response shape and duplicate-comment behavior are left unspecified, which is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented there, including the videoId default. The description only restates the approved-text rule and the default recording, adding no new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Post a comment on a video as the signed-in user.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like like_video, update_video, or get_video_activity, and the actor (signed-in user) is specified.

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 concrete precondition ('Recordful Pro only') with the exact tool to check first (get_status recorder.account.plan) and an approval workflow before acting. It does not name sibling alternatives, but for a posting action the gating and confirmation rules are the useful guidance.

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