update_video

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it declares partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change') and the required scope ('Needs the edit scope'). Annotations already indicate mutation, idempotency, and non-destructive intent, so the description complements rather than contradicts them.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a clear purpose: what the tool does, the partial-update behavior, and the auth requirement. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 six-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and annotations that disclose safety/idempotency, the description plus schema are sufficient. The only minor gap is that the description does not hint at the relationship between privacy_view='password' and the password parameter, but the schema explicitly covers it.

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 all six parameters, including the password-required-when-privacy_view='password' rule. The description uses 'title' while the schema uses 'name', but this is a minor wording mismatch and the schema resolves it. The description does not add significant parameter-level value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Update'), the resource ('a video'), and the specific fields affected ('title, description or privacy'). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the field list is specific enough to distinguish it from other video-related update tools like set_video_tags or set_video_thumbnail.

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 useful context—it states what fields are updated and that only passed fields change—so the intended use is implied. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use set_video_tags for tags' or 'use allow_embed_domain for embed domain rules.'

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