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 reveals key traits: the quota cost ('Costs 1600 quota units'), the resumable nature of the upload, and the default privacy status. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by a parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated into the flow. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool.

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 complexity of a video upload operation with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description does well by covering key behavioral aspects (quota, resumable) and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but authentication and error handling details are 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 6 parameters, including defaults ('default "22" = People & Blogs', 'default private') and allowed values ('private, unlisted, or public'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Upload a video file to YouTube') and resource ('video file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_thumbnail' or 'update_video' which modify existing videos rather than uploading new ones. The verb 'upload' is precise and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_video' or 'set_thumbnail'. It mentions 'Resumable upload' but doesn't explain when this feature is relevant or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., authentication, file format requirements).

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