Update a video's title, description or privacy

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds two important non-annotation facts: partial-update behavior and the required OAuth scope. It does not describe the response shape or error conditions.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral detail, then the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update semantics, and required auth scope, while annotations cover safety. It could mention what the call returns or side effects on embeds, but it is largely complete.

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%, and the schema documents all six parameters including enum meanings. The description does not add syntax, format, or default-value details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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, resource, and field scope: 'Update a video's title, description or privacy.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_video_tags or set_video_thumbnail by the fields it updates, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Needs the edit scope') and partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), which tell the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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