Change a chapter's title or move it to a different timecode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: it does not state whether unspecified fields are left untouched, whether both title and timecode can be supplied together, or whether omitting both is a no-op.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the capability is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is a verbatim copy of the title, so it spends its one sentence restating structured metadata rather than adding new information.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits important context: partial-update semantics, whether at least one of title/timecode_seconds must be supplied, and what the agent should expect back. The annotations cover safety but not update behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no format, range, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g. that timecode_seconds is an absolute offset rather than a delta).

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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a chapter's title'), plus the second capability of moving the timecode, so an agent knows exactly what mutation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like add_chapter, delete_chapter, or list_chapters, and it merely repeats the title verbatim.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. chapter must exist, video must be owned), and no routing to alternatives such as delete_chapter or add_chapter. The only hint ('chapter_id, from list_chapters') lives in the schema, not the description.

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