Update YouTube video metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses only which fields are mutable. It omits whether this is a partial or full update (whether unspecified fields are cleared), auth/scope requirements, quota implications, and whether changes are reversible.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and target up front and no wasted words. Appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks update semantics (partial vs full overwrite), permission requirements, and any note about the return or confirmation behavior an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the six parameters is already documented in the schema. The description merely enumerates four of those fields and adds no format, constraint, or default detail beyond them, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Update') and resource ('video's title, description, tags or privacy status'), making it clear this edits an existing video's metadata. It is distinguishable from google_youtube_upload (new content) and google_youtube_get_video (read), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no contrast with sibling tools such as google_youtube_upload. An agent must infer that this only modifies already-uploaded videos rather than creating new ones.

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