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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description must supply the rest. It does disclose the meaningful behavioral payoff (returns a stream key and RTMP ingest URL), which is real added value, but says nothing about permissions, quotas, or whether the created stream is immediately live — gaps for a creation tool with thin annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the write marker and the action before the endpoint. The 'POST /live-streams' fragment is marginally redundant but cheap and keeps it well under any length concern.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned stream key and RTMP ingest URL — the key information an agent would otherwise lack. With 100% param coverage and a low-complexity flat schema, only auth/rate-limit context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so name, public, and playerId are fully documented in the schema already. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Create a new live stream') and additionally names the concrete artifacts returned — a stream key and RTMP ingest URL. This cleanly separates it from the get/list live-stream siblings without needing their schemas.

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 create-vs-read distinction is implied by the tool name and the 'WRITE.' marker, but the description never states when to choose this over siblings like list_live_streams or get_live_stream, nor any prerequisites (e.g. account/plan limits). Usage is inferable but not articulated.

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