Auto Downstream Key Transition

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds that it 'triggers' an action and specifies it's for 'mix on/off air', which provides context about the transition effect. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether it requires specific device states, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and effect, and another listing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the Args section is redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency. Every sentence serves a purpose, but there's minor waste in repeating schema information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (triggering a transition with one parameter), annotations provide basic safety info, and the schema fully covers inputs. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or error conditions. For a non-read-only tool that performs an action, more context on outcomes would be helpful. The description is minimally adequate but has gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single parameter 'dsk' with its type, range, and meaning. The description repeats this parameter info verbatim in the Args section, adding no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no extra param info in the description.

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 specific action ('Trigger an auto transition') and the target resource ('for a downstream keyer'), with additional clarification about what the transition does ('mix on/off air'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'atem_auto_transition' (which appears to be for main transitions) and 'atem_set_dsk_on_air' (which likely sets state rather than triggering a transition).

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 usage context through the phrase 'mix on/off air', suggesting this tool is for toggling a downstream keyer's on-air status via an auto transition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'atem_set_dsk_on_air' or 'atem_cut', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured downstream keyer). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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