youtube_post_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements (which are relevant given youtube_auth exists), potential errors, rate limits, or side effects beyond the obvious mutation. The action is simple, but the lack of any behavioral notes leaves the agent uninformed about prerequisites or failure modes.

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 description is concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a brief Args section. Every word contributes to clarity, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration. The front-loaded action makes intent instantly clear.

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?

Given the tool's simple two-parameter nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits contextual details like authentication prerequisites, which are relevant given the sibling auth tools, and does not describe the expected result or response behavior. This leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, but the description compensates with clear definitions: 'video_id: YouTube video ID to comment on' and 'text: Comment text.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, although it could include constraints (e.g., length limits) or examples.

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 states the verb and resource: 'Post a new top-level comment on a video.' This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like youtube_reply_to_comment, which handles replies. The scope is unambiguous and directly maps to the tool's function.

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 conveys when to use the tool (to post a top-level comment) and implicitly differentiates from reply functionality via the phrase 'top-level.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases (e.g., when a reply is needed).

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