Update Related Media Customizations

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

Beyond annotations that already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior, the description discloses that only supplied fields change, null deletes a field, confirm=true is required, specific token permissions are needed, and the operation may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. This adds substantial behavioral context an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and partial-update behavior, followed by structured permission requirements. It is reasonably concise, though the token-permission section is somewhat verbose.

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?

Given the mutation is annotated as destructive and the schema documents most parameters, the description completes the picture by covering authorization, confirmation, partial update behavior, null deletion, and possible side effects. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and this is a write operation where that is less critical.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining that sending a field as null deletes it and reverts to the default, which is not captured in the input schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Applies a partial update to a video's related-media customizations.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_related_media_customizations or update_customizations.

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 provides important invocation details: partial update semantics, null field deletion, required permissions, and confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_customizations or create_customizations, leaving that comparison implicit from the tool name.

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