Brief for writing metadata

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds that this tool gathers inputs rather than writing final metadata. It also lists the transcript sources, though it does not describe return shape, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the next step. The parenthetical listing transcript sources is dense but useful, with no wasted wording.

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 read-only gathering tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and the follow-up step. It could say more about the returned brief, but the schema and annotations carry most remaining detail.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description maps transcript sources to transcript, transcript_path, video_id, and file_path, and mentions the template, but adds little for notes, channel, language, or format beyond what the schema provides.

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, "Collect," and names the concrete resource: everything needed to write a title, description, chapters, and tags. It also distinguishes this gathering step from preview_metadata, so an agent can tell it is not the final metadata writer.

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?

It clearly positions the tool before writing metadata and explicitly says to check the result with preview_metadata. It does not spell out when not to use it or compare against every sibling, but the workflow context is clear.

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