Update Engagement Customizations

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantially: partial-update semantics, null-as-delete (revert to default), token-permission requirements including the delegate_to_contact scope, the confirm=true gate, and an explicit side-effect warning about sharing access, notifying people, and provider charges.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by structured permission blocks. The permission boilerplate is somewhat verbose, but every block earns its place by carrying auth and side-effect constraints.

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 destructive, deeply nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation constraints (confirm gate, permissions, partial/null semantics, side effects). It does not clarify how the top-level plugin/flags relate to the payload/payload_file alternatives, though the schema descriptions do cover that.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by defining how field values behave (null deletes a field, absent fields are untouched), which is the key invocation rule for this deeply nested payload.

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), resource (a video's engagement customizations), and scope (only supplied fields change). The 'engagement customizations' resource is named, but the description never distinguishes this from the similarly named sibling update_customizations, leaving some room for confusion.

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 prerequisite conditions (required permissions, delegate scope, confirm=true), which implicitly frame when the call can succeed. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to update_customizations or get_engagement_customizations.

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