Delete a video

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds concrete consequences: YouTube removes the video immediately, there is no trash or undo, and views, comments, and URL are lost. It also surfaces the confirm guardrail. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences front-load the action, then provide consequences and the confirmation requirement. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 destructive tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation facts: target video/channel, irreversibility, and required confirm flag. It could mention account ambiguity when multiple channels are connected, but that detail is already in the schema.

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 already documents account and confirm; the description reinforces confirm ('Needs confirm: true') but adds little beyond it. video_id remains undocumented in the schema, though 'delete a video' makes its role self-evident. With 67% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 lead sentence uses a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('video'), and scope ('connected channel'), and 'permanently' plus 'no trash, no undo' clearly distinguishes this destructive action from siblings like update_video or get_video. The purpose is unambiguous even without naming 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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when a video must be permanently removed from a connected channel. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_video or state when not to delete, so routing guidance is contextual rather than fully explicit.

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