ATEM switcher control

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is 'offline-safe', does not rely on the Blackmagic SDK, and builds an OSC matrix specifically for cut/auto/FTB and program/preview control. This helps the agent understand side effects and external dependencies. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every clause adds value: routing method, SDK disclaimer, offline-safety, and the specific control functions. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a creation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context for selection and invocation: it explains what is built, how it is built, and what functions it exposes. It could be slightly more explicit about return values or the created component's location, but the schema covers the parent_path parameter.

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 all six parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds high-level purpose but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 uses a specific verb ('Create an OSC control preset') and clearly identifies the resource (ATEM switcher) and routing mechanism (atemOSC, Companion, or similar relay). It explicitly distinguishes itself from direct SDK usage by stating 'This does not use the Blackmagic SDK directly', which separates it from sibling tools like connect_blackmagic_atem.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when building an offline-safe OSC-based control matrix for an ATEM switcher via a relay. It also gives an implicit when-not by stating it does not use the Blackmagic SDK directly, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for direct SDK scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.

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