Add monitored playlist

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a duplicate URL returns the existing row (concretizing idempotentHint), that managed playlists start with capture consent off, that polling is clamped to a 15-minute floor, and that actual capture requires separate source consent plus the resident helper. These are non-obvious operational facts an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, alternative routing, duplicate behavior, consent and polling constraints. Scope and the main differentiator are front-loaded, with 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 3-parameter registration tool with no output schema, the description covers what it registers, what happens on duplicates, consent defaults, timing constraints, and how it differs from the two nearest siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to poll_interval_min by stating that polling is clamped to at least 15 minutes — a fact absent from the schema, which declares a minimum of 1 and a default of 5. It does not explain name versus playlist_url, but those are self-evident from the schema text.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Register a YouTube playlist for ongoing metadata monitoring.' The word 'ongoing' plus 'monitoring' distinguishes it from capture-oriented siblings, and the second sentence names the exact alternatives it is not.

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?

Explicit routing is provided: 'Use for repeated observation; use uoink_playlist for a one-time capture batch or register_source for the general source interface.' Both the selection condition and the alternatives are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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