Create Customizations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the replace-not-merge semantics for explicitly-set customizations, the exact permission scopes required, and the side effects (may share access, notify people, incur provider charges). It stops short of describing what happens to unmentioned customizations.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its replace semantics in one sentence, then separates auth preconditions. The fenced code block for permissions is slightly heavy for a single scope but not wasteful overall.

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 43-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: auth, confirm requirement, destructive replace semantics, and side effects. The main omission is the relationship to update_customizations and whether omitted customizations are preserved.

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 95%, so nearly every one of the 43 parameters is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how the flat body flags relate to payload/payload_file), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Set customizations for a video') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('Replaces the customizations explicitly set for this video'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling update_customizations, leaving ambiguity about which mutation to pick.

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?

Provides precondition guidance (required token permission, confirm=true for the mutation), which is useful. But it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance relative to update_customizations or the granular update_*_customizations siblings, so the agent must infer intent.

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