resolve_youtube_channel

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return value on success and failure, and mentions that it returns None/error for certain inputs. Missing details like rate limits or authentication, but reads well for a simple resolution tool.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and examples, but slightly verbose. Could trim some repetition (e.g., 'Returns None / error' and then later 'Returns:' block). Still effective and front-loaded.

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but description covers input constraints, return fields, and error format. Complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides multiple concrete examples and explains the expected format. This fully compensates for the sparse schema, making the parameter semantics crystal clear.

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?

Clearly states it resolves a YouTube handle or channel URL to metadata. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_youtube_channels by noting it skips the search step. Explicitly lists what inputs it does not handle.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user gives an exact handle or URL — skips the search step.' Also warns about invalid inputs (video URLs, free-text strings). Provides clear context for when to use versus alternatives.

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