Capture playlist

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description concretely explains what gets destroyed ('recapturing can replace its saved corpus and metadata'), adds the runtime prerequisite, and discloses the async/partial-output behavior. It also names the return value and the follow-up tools (get_job_status, cancel_job), which annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then routing, then return value, then behavioral caveats. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return value (job_id) and the tools that consume it, and it covers the runtime prerequisite and destructive recapture semantics — everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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% and both parameters (url, interval) are already documented in the schema, including the 5-300 range. The description adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema states, so this is the baseline case where structured data does the work.

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 ('Start a background capture job for the videos in a YouTube playlist') and immediately names the two sibling tools it is not (add_monitored_playlist, uoink_video), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('one-time batch') plus explicit alternatives with their selecting conditions (ongoing monitoring vs. single video). Nothing 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.