Update Accessibility Customizations

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description meaningfully extends these by explaining that omitted fields are preserved, that null values delete a field and revert it to default (the concrete form of the destructive behavior), and that the call may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. The token-permission and confirm requirements are also spelled out, adding real value beyond the annotation flags.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the null-deletion rule, then the permission block. The markdown permission section is somewhat verbose, but it is structured and relevant to a mutation tool, so it earns its place despite some length.

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 14-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers partial-update semantics, destructive null handling, auth scopes, the confirm gate, and side effects. It does not clarify the relationship between the body-flag parameters, the payload object, and payload_file, a minor gap given the 93% schema coverage and rich annotations.

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 93%, so the schema already documents most parameters (baseline 3). The description adds the important semantic that any field sent as null is deleted rather than ignored, which is behavior the schema's per-property descriptions do not convey, warranting an increment above baseline.

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 ('Applies a partial update') and resource ('a video's accessibility customizations'), which cleanly maps to the tool name and separates it from get_accessibility_customizations. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling update_*_customizations tools, so an agent must infer from the resource noun alone.

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?

The description explains partial-update mechanics and null-deletion, which tells the agent how to call it, and it mentions the confirm=true requirement. But it never says when to choose this over get_accessibility_customizations or the other customizations updaters, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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