stream_project_snapshot_archive_endpoint

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

Annotations only cover safety hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true); they do not mention cost. The description adds a genuinely useful behavior not in structured data: it consumes ElevenLabs credits. It also discloses the return media type (application/x-zip bytes), which matters absent an output schema.

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 sentences with no filler; the return type and the output_path hint are front-loaded enough to be useful. The awkward 'Stream Archive With Studio Project Audio Spends ElevenLabs credits' run-on slightly hurts first-pass parsing but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return type and that bytes can be captured via output_path. Cost disclosure and the open-world annotation together give an agent enough to call this safely, though the missing when-to-use routing against sibling stream/get endpoints leaves a small gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description only reinforces output_path behavior ('pass output_path to save them') that the schema already documents in more detail, adding no new semantics for project_id or project_snapshot_id.

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 names a specific operation — streaming an archive (zip) of a Studio project snapshot — which an agent can distinguish from the sibling stream_project_snapshot_audio_endpoint (audio only) and get_project_snapshot_endpoint (metadata). The phrasing 'Stream Archive With Studio Project Audio' is garbled, but the resource and action are recoverable.

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 only usage instruction is the output_path mechanics ('pass output_path to save them'), which is a parameter hint rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this archive stream should be chosen over the sibling audio stream or the snapshot metadata endpoint.

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