youtube_authorize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the asynchronous nature (returns URL immediately, then must poll) and the ability to authorize multiple channels by re-running. It does not mention potential failure states or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent enough for correct invocation.

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?

Two sentences front-load the primary action and immediately provide the follow-up step. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 the essential flow: start, get URL, poll status, add more channels. It does not detail cancellation or edge cases, but those are handled by sibling tools (youtube_authorize_cancel). For a tool that merely initiates an asynchronous process, this is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds no direct parameter explanations. The mention of opening in a browser aligns with openBrowser, but it does not elaborate on alias, setDefault, or timeoutSeconds. Since the schema already documents these, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Start authorizing'), a specific resource ('a channel'), and the immediate action ('Returns the consent URL immediately'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning polling youtube_authorize_status, making its role in the authorization flow clear.

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?

It explicitly gives the workflow: 'give it to the owner to open in a browser, then poll youtube_authorize_status.' It also explains how to add another channel by re-running with a different Google account. This is concrete, actionable guidance that separates initialization from status polling.

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