pixelstream_create_launch_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a persistent reusable profile and returns launch args, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether an existing profile is overwritten, whether Pixel Streaming must already be configured, or what other side effects may occur.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful example and a KB reference. It is not verbose and every line serves a purpose, though the example could be seen as somewhat redundant with the schema defaults.

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?

While an output schema exists and the return behavior is mentioned, the description lacks critical context for a stateful creation tool: prerequisites, overwrite behavior, required setup, and meaning of all six parameters. Given 0% schema parameter descriptions and no annotations, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description only provides an example using profile_name, resolution_x, and resolution_y. It does not explain streamer_id, signalling_url, render_offscreen, or how the parameters map to launch arguments, leaving much of the parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific action: create a reusable Pixel Streaming launch profile and return its launch args. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes the tool from inspect/configure siblings by focusing on profile creation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 word 'reusable' and the example imply this is for creating a preset launch profile for later use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over pixelstream_configure_plugin or pixelstream_configure_streamer. No when-not-to-use or alternative selection criteria are provided, leaving usage mostly implied.

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