Set Super Source Art

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaning of the keying fields and the ssrcId default, but it never says whether omitted optional parameters are left unchanged or reset — an important behavioral trait for a configure tool with zero required params.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, but the nine-line Args list duplicates schema text the agent already receives, so a meaningful portion of the description does not earn 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?

With 8 all-optional parameters, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and field roles adequately. The main omission is patch-vs-replace semantics for omitted parameters, which is the one thing an agent still cannot infer.

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 schema already carries the parameter documentation. The Args block largely restates the schema field descriptions verbatim (artOption, artClip, artGain, ssrcId), adding no syntax, units or interaction detail beyond it.

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 verb and resource ("Configure the Super Source art ... key settings") and explains the scope as controlling which source is the art layer and how it is keyed. This separates it reasonably from the box/layout/border siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note about when to prefer atem_set_supersource_box or atem_set_supersource_border instead, and no prerequisite (e.g. connection) or read-back (atem_get_supersource_state) mentioned.

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