Update video details

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that only supplied fields change, that the API replaces the whole snippet and would blank omitted fields, and that the tool preserves unspecified fields by reading them back first. It also discloses that the operation is reversible and therefore not confirm-gated. This is substantive behavioral context that the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations do not provide.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the critical partial-update behavior, and the reversibility/no-confirm implication. Key information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 output schema and six parameters, the description covers the most operationally critical facts: which fields change, how omitted fields are preserved, and reversibility. It does not mention the conditional account requirement or failure modes, but the schema's account description already covers the account disambiguation failure, and no nested/output schema exists to overcomplicate the picture.

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 only 17%, with only 'account' documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by listing the changeable fields (title, description, tags, privacy) and by explaining the patch-like behavior across fields. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics, units, constraints, or the conditional importance of the 'account' parameter, leaving the low-coverage schema to carry significant weight.

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 opens with an explicit verb and resource: 'Change a video's title, description, tags or privacy.' It names the exact fields affected, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly separating it from read-focused siblings like get_video and destructive delete_video. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a video's metadata needs updating. It provides valuable context about partial-field updates, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives (e.g., 'use get_video to inspect before updating') or states when not to use it. The usage context is clear, but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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