Resume an upload

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by explaining resumption semantics (resumes from the last confirmed byte, automatic retries) but says nothing about auth requirements, idempotency of repeat calls, or that the call may block while waiting.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the qualifying detail about automatic retries. No filler, though the retry sentence could be tightened since it also appears as behavior elsewhere.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no output schema and fully undocumented parameters. An agent still cannot tell what job_id to supply, whether the call blocks, or what it returns on success versus an exhausted retry, which is a substantial gap for the complexity involved.

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 carries the full burden for both parameters and fails: it never mentions job_id (where it comes from, format) or wait_seconds (that it is a blocking wait capped at 110 seconds with a default of 10). The only hint is indirect, via 'last byte YouTube confirmed'.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Resume a stopped, failed or cancelled upload') and pins the resume point ('from the last byte YouTube confirmed'), which cleanly distinguishes it from start-fresh siblings like upload_video. It never names the sibling tools it supersedes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives concrete trigger conditions (stopped, failed, or cancelled upload; after a quota reset or reconnecting the channel) and adds a partial when-not by noting that network drops and quota resets are retried automatically. It does not say what to check first or which sibling reports job state, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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