ingest_youtube_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only discloses that confirm=false is a zero-write preview that reads public metadata. It does not disclose the real side effects of confirm=true, such as what gets written, downloaded, or persisted, nor any auth, idempotency, or rate-limit behavior.

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?

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the most important safety distinction, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It earns its place yet leaves critical content missing.

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 side-effect tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, four parameters, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits the core ingest behavior, side effects, parameter meanings, and sibling differentiation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters, but it only touches confirm. url, force, and title remain completely unexplained, and confirm=true's meaning is left ambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as a side-effect tool and explains the preview mode, but it never explicitly states that the tool ingests a YouTube video; that action is only implied by the tool name. It distinguishes confirm=false behavior but does not differentiate the tool from siblings like ingest_x_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 implies a usage pattern: use confirm=false to preview with zero writes. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor what confirm=true actually triggers, leaving the when-to-use guidance incomplete.

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