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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses failure modes (stream goes to `stopped` and publish is rejected if no free transcoder within ~15s), error codes (406 live_api_error, 504 live_timeout) with 'do not retry' guidance, and what the response does/does not contain (ingest.host present, no SRT/WebRTC URLs). This is rich operational context consistent with non-idempotent, non-readOnly hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and prerequisites, and nearly every sentence carries essential routing or error-handling guidance. Minor deduction for awkward line breaks mid-sentence and a trailing 'Call get_live_stream' note that reads disjointedly from the preceding error-code discussion.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers prerequisites, failure semantics, error codes, retry policy, and what the response omits. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents stream_id. The description refers to 'this same id' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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+resource ('Allocate the encoder for a live stream') that is clearly distinct from create_live_stream, start_encode2_raw, and stop_live_stream. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules (required before WebRTC/SRT ingest, call before RTMP publish, only if the stream is not already running), exclusions (do not start a different stream), and a conditional alternative ('if the user asked a different protocol, call update_live_stream on this same id first').

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