update_video

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses that updates are partial (at least one field required) and that a null group_id has removal semantics. This goes beyond the structured metadata, though it doesn't address auth, side effects, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the operation and target fields, the second states the required condition and a special null case. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation with no property descriptions and minimal annotations, the description covers the main update paths but omits the rationale and move_group semantics, and it doesn't clarify the group-move mechanics beyond null removal. The output schema covers return shape, so that gap is acceceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies name, title, description, and group_id behavior, but leaves rationale and move_group unexplained, including how move_group interacts with group_id. So compensation is only partial.

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 names the resource ('video') and the action ('update') and then enumerates the mutable aspects: display name, title, description, or group membership. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_video, upload_video, or get_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?

It gives concrete call conditions: at least one field must be provided, and group removal requires group_id to be null. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with alternatives, but the update context is clear.

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