Show Access Customizations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real value beyond them: specific required permission scopes, the delegation-token behavior (requests authorized as the assigned contact), and the notable fact that the response includes the stored password. That sensitive-data disclosure is exactly the kind of context an agent should have.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single tight sentence before the permissions detail, which is the right ordering. The permissions boilerplate is somewhat verbose but carries useful authorization detail rather than filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it says what is retrieved and flags that it exposes the stored password, plus documents the authorization requirements. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (account, media_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ("Fetches") and resource ("explicitly-set password-protection settings for the video"), sharpening the vague name 'access customizations' into a concrete concern. It distinguishes itself from the many other get_*_customizations siblings by naming password protection, though it never explicitly names update_access_customizations as the write counterpart.

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?

Usage is only implied: the read-only framing and the word 'explicitly-set' hint at when this is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer it pairs with update_access_customizations, but must do the inferring itself.

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