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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required state (e.g. an existing live asset), auth expectations, or side effects of starting a stream.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is so terse that it functions more as a title restatement than as usable documentation. Appropriate size, insufficient substance.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation operation with no output schema, the description should expose preconditions or result behavior. It does neither, so an agent lacks the context needed to call this reliably.

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% for the single live_asset_id parameter, including its description, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no extra meaning, which is the expected baseline when schema is complete.

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 names a specific verb (start) and resource (live stream), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as complete_live_stream, create_live_asset, or get_live_asset_status, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many live-stream siblings. No prerequisites, preconditions, or alternative routes are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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