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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds critical context beyond the basic action: it specifies a cost ('Costs 50 quota units'), warns about irreversibility, and clarifies that deletion is permanent. This covers key behavioral traits like resource consumption and destructive impact.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by key behavioral details (cost and irreversibility), and ends with parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with cost implications), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavioral risks, cost, and parameter meaning, providing all necessary context for safe and informed use without redundancy.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains the single parameter ('playlist_id: The playlist ID to delete'), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it could provide more detail (e.g., format or source of the ID). With one parameter fully documented, it meets high standards but not perfect.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a playlist'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'update_playlist' or 'list_playlists' by focusing on deletion rather than modification or retrieval.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating 'This is irreversible,' which implicitly guides usage toward careful selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_playlist' for modifications) or list any prerequisites, such as requiring ownership of the playlist.

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