Set Super Source Box

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: only explicitly specified properties are changed, so it is a partial update rather than a full overwrite. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior, but the key mutation semantics are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and the partial-update rule, then gives a structured argument list. It is appropriately sized for a 12-parameter tool, though most of the argument details duplicate the schema and are not strictly necessary given the 100% schema coverage.

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 12 parameters, one required field, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It documents every parameter and clarifies optional partial-update behavior. Minor gaps remain around permissions and error handling, but nothing essential to the call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema for at least one parameter: source is illustrated with examples such as 1=Input 1 and 3010=Media Player 1. The rest of the parameter descriptions largely mirror the schema, but the added source context and the optionality reminder are useful.

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 a single Super Source box, and it names the exact properties being set (source, position, size, crop). This is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling tools like atem_set_supersource_layout, atem_set_supersource_art, and atem_set_supersource_border without opening their schemas.

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 by explaining that all properties except box are optional and only specified values are changed, which is useful for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the related Super Source layout, art, or border tools, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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