katto_generate_post_text

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

Despite readOnlyHint=false, the description clarifies nothing is posted or saved and no video quota is consumed, resolves the trappy safety question an agent would otherwise infer from annotations, and discloses the caching behavior ('identical requests within an hour return the cached text') plus that title is only populated for YouTube.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the output contract, then the safety/downstream notes. The nested output notation is dense but load-bearing, and there is little filler; a 4 rather than 5 because it packs a lot into a single run-on sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return object shape, the per-platform title/description/hashtags mapping, and the behavioral caveats (no save, no quota, cache window) needed to call and consume the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the description largely repeats schema facts ('omit platform to get all seven', 0-based clip_index). Its extra detail about platform-dependent output shape is about return values rather than parameter meaning, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write publish-ready post text for one clip with AI'), names the per-platform tailoring and language scope, and is clearly distinct from siblings like katto_publish_clip or katto_get_transcript. The output shape is even inlined, so the agent knows exactly what it produces.

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?

Explicitly says to omit platform to get all seven, to show the text to the user before proceeding, and to hand the result to katto_publish_clip (naming which field maps to caption vs YouTube title/description). This is a full when-to-use and what-to-do-next chain.

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