streamlabs_create_and_add_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the high-level operation but omits critical details such as whether the scene must already exist, what happens on invalid source types, how errors surface, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating action with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides practical type examples. No filler or redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with 4 parameters, a nested settings object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and type examples adequately. However, it misses explicit differentiation from sibling tools (create_source, add_source_to_scene) and lacks guidance on prerequisites or failure behavior, leaving the agent to infer these from surrounding context.

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?

The description enriches the `type` parameter by listing common source types with human-readable labels (e.g., 'dshow_input' (webcam), 'ffmpeg_source' (media)), going beyond the schema's single example. It does not add much for `sceneId` or `settings`, but schema coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3 and the extra type list pushes it higher.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a brand new source and add it to a scene in one step'), identifying the specific verb, resource, and atomicity. It also lists common source types, which helps distinguish this combined tool from siblings like streamlabs_create_source and streamlabs_add_source_to_scene.

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 phrase 'in one step' clarifies that this tool combines creation and addition, which is useful context when choosing among siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if you only need to create a source or only add an existing one), so it stops short of fully explicit guidance.

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