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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by declaring it a WRITE operation and specifying that it returns a stream key and RTMP ingest URL. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could disclose more about side effects or prerequisites.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that includes the action, resource, endpoint, and key return values. Every part is useful and there is no padding or repetition.

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 low-complexity creation tool with three documented parameters, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It names the critical returned artifacts (stream key and RTMP URL) even though there is no output schema, but it does not describe full response details or error behavior.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves, but it does indicate the real-world output that follows from successful invocation.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new live stream') on a specific resource, making it distinct from siblings like apivideo_create_video or apivideo_get_live_stream. It also names the endpoint and the key outputs (stream key, RTMP ingest URL), fully clarifying the tool's purpose.

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?

The description clearly implies this tool is for creating a live stream, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives such as apivideo_create_video or apivideo_list_live_streams. It provides the endpoint and result, but no exclusion or comparison guidance.

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