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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing environment prerequisites, the plan gate, that processing minutes are consumed, and that the clip becomes visible asynchronously in list_clips only after processing. The non-idempotent, non-destructive nature is consistent with the annotations and the "now" semantics make repeat-call consequences implicit.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, prerequisites, cost, and result visibility. The prerequisite clause is a long run-on that could be a bulleted list, but nothing is padding.

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 an output schema exists and the parameter is fully documented, the description covers everything an agent still needs: when this applies, what must be true, what it costs, and where the result surfaces. No significant gap remains for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single seconds parameter is documented with its enum values and default, so the schema carries the meaning. The description restates "the last 30 or 60 seconds" and anchors it to "now," but adds no formatting or edge-case detail beyond that.

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 action and resource: save the OBS replay buffer now and turn the last 30 or 60 seconds into a clip, explicitly likened to the in-app clip button. The live-stream framing separates it from start_clipping and generate_clips, though it never names those siblings directly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context ("During a live stream") plus three hard prerequisites: agent running and connected on the streaming PC, replay buffer enabled, and a Creator/Pro/Elite plan. It stops short of naming alternatives for non-live or VOD scenarios, so an agent must infer what to use instead when the stream is offline.

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