apply_embed_preset

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

Annotations convey that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent operation. The description adds the branding outcome but doesn't disclose whether existing player settings are fully replaced or what side effects occur. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words. The action and outcome are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

With two required parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering idempotency and mutation, the description plus schema are enough for a competent agent to invoke the tool. It could hint at listing presets first, but the schema already does that.

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%, with video_id and preset_id already clearly documented (including that preset_id comes from list_embed_presets). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Apply' with the resource 'saved embed preset' and the target 'a video'. The purpose clause 'so its player matches your branding' makes the tool's intent concrete. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_video_thumbnail or update_video.

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 a clear context: you apply a saved embed preset to a video when you want its player to match your branding. It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for this exact task, so the context is sufficient.

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