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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries real weight and delivers: it specifies required inputs, key-format constraints per platform (rtmp/rtmps/srt), that optional setting groups default sensibly, and that status is externally managed. It stops short of describing return shape or error behavior, but adds substantial context beyond the annotation.

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?

Requirements and the request-mapping are front-loaded, and the sentences are dense but purposeful. Some key-format detail duplicates the schema, which costs a bit of efficiency, but it is well organized overall.

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 14-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical creation constraints, default behavior of optional groups, and lifecycle separation. It does not enumerate every optional group (schedule, url, type), but the schema covers those, so nothing decisive 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 the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description largely restates schema content (key format rules, platform values) rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a stream') and grounds it against the API surface ('Mirrors POST /api/v1/streams'). It also delineates the lifecycle boundary by noting status is managed by start_stream/stop_stream, which separates it from those siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_stream vs this creation path.

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 clear operative context: name and platform are required, a key is needed unless platform is none, and status is handled elsewhere. It also hints that platform 'none' exists to add a destination later. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or a direct alternative tool name for creation scenarios.

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