Show Customizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating the required token permission ('Read all folder and media data') and the delegation scope behavior, but says nothing about what 'explicitly defined' means or what is returned.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and clear, but it is followed by a large fenced permission block that dominates the description's length. The permission text earns some place, yet the prose around it ('Read-only account operation') is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description does cover authentication requirements, which is the main non-obvious burden. It is still incomplete on the two things an agent most needs here: which customization scope this returns versus its many siblings, and what 'explicitly defined' excludes.

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%: media_id ('hashed ID of the video') and account ('named private Wistia account') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches ... customizations for the video'), so an agent knows it is a read of customization data. However, with ~10 sibling getters (get_appearance_customizations, get_playback_customizations, get_thumbnail_customizations, etc.) the bare 'customizations' resource is not disambiguated, and the qualifier 'explicitly defined' is never explained.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no routing to the numerous sibling customization getters (e.g. get_appearance_customizations vs get_playback_customizations). The only contextual text is authentication/permission boilerplate, which is not usage guidance.

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