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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by declaring irreversibility and the live-broadcast interruption. It stops short of saying what happens to attached resources such as destinations or queued items, which is the remaining meaningful 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?

Three short sentences with the destructive nature front-loaded, followed by the irreversibility warning and endpoint mapping. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and the API route it mirrors. Only the fate of dependent objects (destinations, queue entries) is left unstated.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented as a 'Stream UUID', so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, which lands on the baseline.

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 pair and resource ('Stop any live broadcast and permanently delete the stream and its configuration'), plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what happens. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling stop_stream (which stops but does not delete) and delete_media by naming the stream as the resource.

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 implies the usage condition (a full teardown rather than a mere stop), but never explicitly says when to choose it over stop_stream, delete_media, or update_stream, and lists no exclusions. Usage is inferable from the verb, which is the definition of a 3.

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