Publish, unlist, hide or schedule

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds the crucial non-obvious behavior: a confirmation gate for unlisted/public/scheduled changes, which explains the confirmation_token parameter. It stops short of describing failure modes or quota/open-world side effects.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and valid states front-loaded before the confirmation constraint. Nothing is repeated from the title verbatim.

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 5-parameter mutation tool the description covers the two things an agent most needs beyond the schema: the valid state set and the confirmation workflow that gates non-private changes. Minor gaps remain around the channel parameter and what a confirmation failure looks like, but nothing critical is missing.

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 60%, with privacy (the enum) and video_id undocumented in the schema, but the description names the three privacy values, filling the most important gap. It adds nothing beyond the schema for publish_at or confirmation_token, so it sits at the baseline for partially documented parameters.

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 ('Change who can see a video') and enumerates the target states (private, unlisted, public, scheduled via publish_at). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby update_video sibling, which plausibly also touches visibility, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 one real usage condition: anything other than private requires the user's confirmation. It offers no guidance on when to reach for this instead of update_video, nor on whether privacy can be omitted (scheduling-only calls), leaving the routing decision implicit.

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