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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds state-dependent behavior beyond that: live streams fail with code live_api_error and stay up, waiting/created streams delete and return status: deleted, and retries are discouraged. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the permission gate, then the state-machine failure mode, then the success case. Nothing is redundant given the annotations.

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?

Output schema exists and return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the relevant response codes and statuses. For a single-parameter destructive tool, an agent has everything needed to call it safely and correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, stream_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for stream_id; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete a live stream') and immediately clarifies the scope of when it applies, plus routes the agent to stop_live_stream for the live case. An agent can distinguish this from stop_live_stream and update_live_stream without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this only when the user explicitly asks' and gives the alternative path: 'Stop it, then delete' when status is live, including 'Do not retry the delete while it is live.' When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the sibling alternative are all named.

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