rate-video

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 mentions 'Costs 50 quota units,' which is a useful cost detail, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, whether the rating is user-specific, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. This is sparse for a mutation 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?

The description is two short sentences: 'Like, dislike, or clear your rating on a video. Costs 50 quota units.' Every word serves a purpose, and the core action is front-loaded. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and even includes the quota cost. However, since there are no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about return values, error conditions, and permission requirements. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 already documents both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by using 'clear your rating' to explain the 'none' enum value, and 'your rating' clarifies that the rating belongs to the authenticated user. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'Rating to apply'.

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 tool's function: 'Like, dislike, or clear your rating on a video.' This uses a specific verb (rate) and resource (video), and the three actions map directly to the enum values. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get-video-rating or update-video because it focuses on setting the viewer's rating.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to rate a video, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get-video-rating (to read) or update-video (to edit metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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