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

Goes well past the annotations: it lists the accepted states (created/waiting/live/idle/stopped) and that status is preserved, notes that WebRTC/SRT ingest URLs are omitted from the response, explains that an empty callback_url clears the callback, and decodes three error codes (nothing_to_update, bucket_not_found, storage_not_ready) with instructions not to invent a bucket.

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-loads the verb and the minimum invocation rule, and nearly every sentence carries operational constraint rather than restating schema. It is on the long side for eight parameters, with the DVR and error-code material packed densely, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still flags the notable return-value gap (WebRTC/SRT URLs are not returned and must be fetched from the portal) and documents the error paths an agent will hit. For a non-idempotent, open-world mutation with eight parameters, that covers everything needed to call it safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding behavioral meaning to input_format (protocol switch, no restart), dvr_bucket (must come from list_buckets, no secrets, portal builds destination) and callback_url (empty string clears). name, dvr_path and output_format get no elaboration beyond the schema, so it falls short of full coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Change a live stream") and immediately constrains scope with "Pass at least one change." It also distinguishes itself from the start_live_stream/stop_live_stream/delete_live_stream siblings by stating status must not change unless the user explicitly asked to start or stop.

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 conditions (switch ingest protocol via input_format, no restart required), explicit exclusions (do not change status, do not create or start a different stream on the requested protocol), and a prerequisite chain (dvr_bucket must come from list_buckets; DVR needs a destination now or from an earlier update).

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