google_youtube_insert_commentPost a top-level comment on a YouTube video by providing the video ID and comment text, with an optional account nickname for multi-account use.
Post a top-level comment on a video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Comment text. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| videoId | Yes | YouTube video ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no mention of moderation state, rate limits, or whether the comment is immediately visible to others. For a write/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it leaves useful context unstated.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters needs more than one sentence: nothing covers permissions, the meaning of the optional account nickname, moderation behavior, or the result of the call. The definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents videoId, text, and account; the baseline is 3. The description adds no format hints or account-selection semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it earns no bonus.
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 (post) and resource (comment) with the scope qualifier 'top-level', which distinguishes it from reply-style tools and from siblings like google_youtube_list_comments, set_comment_moderation, and mark_comment_spam. It is clear but does not explicitly name any sibling it differs from.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The only guidance is the implicit 'if you want to comment, use this', which is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.