youtube_preflight_archive_video

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

Goes well beyond the single destructiveHint annotation: it names exactly what changes (privacy to private, scheduled publish cleared), what is preserved (title, description, everything else), how to undo it, and the specific refusal condition/error code. That is precisely the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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 tight sentences, each doing distinct work: what changes, how to reverse, when it refuses. The mutation scope is front-loaded ahead of the recovery and refusal 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, and failure mode, which is nearly everything needed. It stops short of clarifying whether any preview/confirmation payload is returned and how this differs from youtube_archive_video.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('ID of an owned video to archive'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('archiving an owned video') and spells out the concrete effect (private + clears scheduled publish time). The only wobble is the word 'Preview' sitting next to a real mutation, which an agent has to reconcile from the rest of the sentence; the sibling that actually commits the archive (youtube_archive_video) is never named.

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 usage context: it is reversible via youtube_update_metadata (public or unlisted) and it refuses with already_archived when the video is already private and unscheduled. It does not say when to prefer this over the sibling youtube_archive_video or what the difference in outcome is, so the preflight-vs-commit choice is left to inference.

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