youtube_data_call

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 explicitly states 'Read-only unless YTMCP_ALLOW_WRITE=1', which is a critical safety trait. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling behavior, or that outputPath is recommended for large responses. The read-only/write condition is useful, but the description is thin overall.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and examples, followed by the read-only condition. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is an excellent example of concise, structured writing.

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 generic wrapper with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not mention that the agent needs to know YouTube Data API v3 endpoint syntax, nor does it point to any documentation. It also fails to mention authentication prerequisites (though sibling auth tools exist) or that outputPath is strongly preferred for large results. The agent cannot safely and correctly invoke this tool based solely on the given description.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. Schema coverage is only 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions: path, account, outputPath), leaving body, query, format, and method undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap; it merely gives endpoint examples, so the agent must guess at parameter usage for the undocumented fields.

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 clear verb ('call') and resource ('YouTube Data API v3') with concrete endpoint examples (/videos, /channels, /liveBroadcasts, /search). It is obvious this is a raw API wrapper, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like youtube_analytics_query or youtube_reporting_call, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this vs. a specialized tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not say 'use this for arbitrary endpoints not covered by specialized tools' or mention any prerequisites like authentication or authorization. The agent must infer usage from the name and examples, which is insufficient.

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