Import a list of videos

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that reads are capped at 50 per call with offset paging, that already-in-library videos are skipped (idempotent-ish behavior despite idempotentHint=false), that queueing happens one at a time on a background queue, and that imported items retain a source tag and note. These are non-obvious side effects an agent needs and none of them are derivable from the structured 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?

Purpose and source enumeration are front-loaded, then usage alternatives, then behavior, then return shape — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly long, with the inline license note '(hackertube.org, ODC-By 1.0)' being the only detail that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return fields (found, already, queued, next_offset, per-video rows) and explaining how next_offset feeds the following call. Combined with source URL formats covered in the schema and openWorldHint in annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic context the schema does not: the 50-item batch ceiling combined with offset paging as a workflow, and preview_only as a dry-run counter. It stops short of restating each parameter individually, which is appropriate given the schema already documents them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue every video from a list source for normal capture', then enumerates the exact supported sources (HackerTube playlist/category/area/whole collection, Hacker News thread, Reddit thread, YouTube playlist). It explicitly distinguishes itself from uoink_playlist and uoink_video, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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 an explicit use case ('many videos picked by someone else') and names both alternatives with their selection conditions: uoink_playlist for a playlist as one tracked job, uoink_video for a single video. It also states when to use preview_only to count without queueing, which is a concrete when-to-use rule.

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