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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the exact failure mode for a repeat call (code: live_api_error, HTTP 406) and instructing not to retry, which is concrete operational context an agent could not infer. It does not spell out the consequence of stopping (broadcast interruption, effect on recordings), leaving a small gap.

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?

Two short paragraphs, action first, precondition and error behavior after; every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the invocation precondition and the notable error case, which is close to sufficient. Adding what stopping implies for the stream's viewers or recordings would close the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter, stream_id, whose schema description is present and coverage is 100%. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the id, so the schema is doing all the work and baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Stop a live stream') that an agent can immediately map to the sibling start_live_stream. It does not explicitly name the siblings it is distinct from (start_live_stream, delete_live_stream), but the operation is unambiguous.

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 an explicit gating condition ('Call this only when the user asks to stop it') and explicitly rules out retrying on the already-stopped error. It stops short of naming alternatives such as delete_live_stream for permanent removal, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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