Update Sharing Customizations

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: required API token permissions, the delegate_to_contact_permissions scope, the confirm=true gate, and side effects like sharing access, notifying people, or incurring provider charges. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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 first sentence front-loads purpose and mutation semantics, followed by auth and confirmation requirements; every element is relevant. The fenced permission block is slightly verbose but functional, not wasteful.

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 nested-payload mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, confirmation, and mutation semantics well. Return behavior is not described, but with no output schema that is a minor gap and the safety-critical context is present.

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 coverage is 83% (baseline 3), and the description adds meaning on top: it clarifies partial mutation semantics and that null values delete fields, which governs how the nested payload/share fields must be sent. It does not explain media_id, account, or the payload vs payload_file vs body-flag exclusivity, so it falls short of a 5.

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 ('applies a partial update to a video's sharing customizations') and the paired sibling get_sharing_customizations makes the scope unambiguous versus broader update_customizations. An agent can identify the resource and the update semantics immediately.

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?

Explains the partial-update contract and the null-deletes-field behavior, which is the key decision information for how to call it. It does not explicitly contrast with update_customizations or other customization updaters, so sibling routing is left to inference rather than stated.

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