Edit video metadata

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: partial-update semantics, conditional template effects tied to which fields are passed, and a confirmation-gating rule for visibility/scheduling. It stops short of describing failure modes, quota cost, or what the call returns, and the confirmation_token mechanics are only in the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, then conditional behaviors, then the safety gate — no repeated or padded prose. Minor waste in the catch-all 'and other settings' and the parenthetical template clause is slightly compressed, but overall efficient.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk gaps: partial-update behavior, template side effects, and the approval requirement before publishing. The remaining undocumented parameters are mostly self-evident booleans, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though failure and return behavior remain unaddressed.

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 only 24%, so the description must compensate; it does partially by naming the field groups and clarifying template interaction with title/description/tags. However, privacy enum values, category_id, license, and the several booleans (embeddable, made_for_kids, public_stats_viewable, contains_synthetic_media) get no semantic elaboration beyond their self-describing names, leaving real ambiguity for a 17-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change a video's title, description, tags, category, languages, audience') and enumerates the editable surface, then explicitly names the sibling it is not for visibility-only edits ('or use set_visibility'). An agent can distinguish this from set_visibility, update_channel or set_video_localizations without opening any schema.

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 states the selection rule ('Only the fields you pass change'), explains when the template option applies and precisely which fields each template part affects, and flags the two conditions that require user approval (public/unlisted visibility, scheduling) while routing visibility-only changes to set_visibility. When-to-use, when-to-confirm and the alternative are all explicit.

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