youtube_reporting_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 discloses the read-only default and the YTMCP_ALLOW_WRITE=1 escape hatch, which is critical safety information. It does not detail auth prerequisites or write-path side effects, but the core risk behavior is surfaced.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the API name and examples before the read-only caveat, making the most important information immediately visible.

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 is minimally viable: it names the API, gives endpoint examples, and includes a key safety guard. However, it omits auth/account prerequisites, does not clarify how YTMCP_ALLOW_WRITE influences method handling, and provides little context for the many undocumented parameters, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 only 43%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond path examples like /jobs and /reportTypes. Parameters such as body, query, method, and format are not explained in the description, leaving significant semantic gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource (YouTube Reporting API) and the action (unrestricted call), with concrete endpoint examples like /jobs and /reportTypes. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like youtube_data_call or youtube_analytics_query, though it does not explicitly state that distinction.

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 gives clear context about when to use the tool: for low-level calls to the YouTube Reporting API endpoints. It provides concrete examples, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as dedicated analytics tools.

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