live_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states MODE (mixed read+write), AUTH (OAuth 2.0 required), CREDITS (list/get free, create/patch/delete are write operations), and OUTPUT (returns live stream ad break objects scoped by event/asset key). This disclosure is thorough, though it does not detail potential side effects or error conditions.

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 extremely concise at three sentences plus a structured block (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE). Every element serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core function. No redundant or extraneous 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 mixed mode and multiple actions, the description covers all essential facets: purpose, auth, credits, output format, and usage guidance. The only gap is the lack of a detailed output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return type. The network_code source is noted. Complete for typical agent use.

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 already has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (action with enum descriptions, network_code with source guidance). The description adds context about scoping by event/asset key but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Manage live stream ad breaks for GAM video workflows', which is a specific verb+resource. It further breaks down into five sub-operations (list, get, create, patch, delete) via the action parameter, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other aspects of ad management.

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 includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'Use live_stream to inspect, create, update, or delete ad breaks for live video events.' It also specifies the MODE (mixed), AUTH requirements, and CREDITS cost, providing context for appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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