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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the user-visible consequence (live viewers are interrupted) and a required confirmation step. It does not cover reversibility or any state side effects, so not a 5.

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, zero padding, with the action and its impact front-loaded before the caution and the REST mapping. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it does, the blast radius, and the confirmation caveat. Missing only return/status behavior, which is a minor omission here.

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% for the single 'stream' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the parameter via the REST path template and adds no format or lookup detail beyond UUID naming.

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 ('Stop a running stream') and adds the meaningful qualifier that it interrupts a live broadcast, which distinguishes it from the neighboring delete_stream and start_stream. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 one genuine usage constraint — confirm with the user before stopping a live stream — which is real guidance. However, it never says when to choose stop_stream versus delete_stream or how it relates to stream lifecycle/start_stream, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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