ytdlp__download_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: the fallback to environment variables and ~/Downloads, the constraint that trimming requires both times, the default resolution, and the maxRetries cap. It does not mention failure handling or whether files are overwritten, but for a download tool, the provided behavioral context is quite useful.

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 concise opening sentence, a @remarks section for special behavior, and @param entries for each parameter. Every line adds value and is not redundant. The structure improves scannability and helps an agent quickly extract parameter semantics.

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?

The description covers parameters and key behaviors, but it does not describe the return value or what the output looks like (e.g., file path, status message). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the result format. Also, error scenarios and edge cases (e.g., invalid URL, network failures) are not addressed, leaving an incomplete picture for the agent.

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 fully compensates by documenting every parameter with @param lines. It adds format constraints (URL must start with http/https), resolution choices with a default, examples for time strings, the fallback order for output_dir, and the cap on maxRetries. This goes well 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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Download a video from a URL using yt-dlp, saving to output_dir or a configured default directory.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ytdlp__download_audio and ytdlp__download_video_subtitles by focusing on video download and output behavior.

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 usage context such as resolution selection, optional time-range trimming, and the requirement that both startTime and endTime be provided together. It also explains fallback directories and the maxRetries cap. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., ytdlp__download_audio), so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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