收藏 / 取消收藏

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds the critical non-annotation fact that the tool is a dry run by default and only mutates when confirm=true, which materially changes how an agent should call a destructive tool.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the safety default, then the fallback behavior. No filler and nothing misplaced.

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 4-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers operation, safety default, and the folder-discovery path. It omits what a preview response actually contains, a minor gap given no output schema is declared.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are documented structurally. The description still adds meaning beyond it, explaining the conditional behavior of folder_id (omission returns the folder list) and the confirm gating, which the schema does not state.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (add/remove a video to/from a favorite folder) plus the toggle semantics, so an agent can tell it apart from like_video or coin_video in the sibling set. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear invocation context that most tool descriptions omit: the default is a preview only, work happens only with confirm=true, and omitting folder_id yields the list of available folders. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over like_video/coin_video or when not to use it.

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