youtube-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Costs 50 quota units,' which is valuable operational context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or response format. This partial disclosure meets a baseline for a destructive tool but leaves gaps.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and cost, followed by a clear parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose and quota, the second defines the parameter. No wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It includes quota cost and parameter semantics, but lacks context on permissions, reversibility, or integration with siblings. For a delete operation, more behavioral guidance would improve completeness.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'comment_id: The comment ID to delete,' clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the bare schema. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient to elevate the score above baseline, though it doesn't detail format or sourcing of the ID.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_playlist' and 'delete_video' by specifying the comment resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reply_to_comment' or 'list_comments' in terms of purpose, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment ID from 'list_comments'), exclusions, or comparisons with related tools like 'reply_to_comment'. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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