Set Super Source Border

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not state that omitted fields are left untouched, that changes hit the live Super Source immediately, or how the ssrcId selects the target output.

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 first sentence is a tight, front-loaded purpose statement, but the 14-item Args list duplicates the schema field-by-field and consumes most of the definition without adding information. Trimming it would leave a stronger, shorter definition.

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 14 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the agent knows what each field means. It is missing the one thing not in the schema — that this is a partial update where unset fields are preserved — plus any note on which Super Source instance is affected.

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% and the description's Args block is essentially a verbatim restatement of the schema descriptions. No extra semantics (units beyond what the schema states, interaction between outer/inner width, partial-update behavior) are added, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure the Super Source border appearance') and enumerates the aspects controlled (visibility, width, color, bevel, light source). It is distinguishable from atem_set_supersource_box/layout/art by the 'border' qualifier, 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus atem_set_supersource_box, atem_set_supersource_layout, or atem_set_supersource_art, and no mention of prerequisites (connection state, whether changes apply live). The reader must infer that only the supplied optional fields are changed.

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