Connect Blackmagic ATEM

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying that this creates a scaffold with UDP transport placeholders and operator approval notes—not a live functional connection. This nuance is not captured by readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true, though it stops short of detailing side effects like created COMP placement or overwrite behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key deliverables.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this one-sentence description is not enough to be fully actionable. It omits explanation of the individual parameters, defaults, side effects, or what the resulting scaffold actually looks like (e.g., how 'operator approval notes' are structured). The scaffold concept is underspecified.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate for the 9 parameters, but it only mentions high-level concepts like 'input maps' and 'macro maps' without referencing parameters such as atem_host, send_port, input_count, macro_count, or include_cut_auto. It does not meaningfully clarify parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides for the three described fields.

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') and a specific resource ('Blackmagic ATEM command-map scaffold') with concrete contents (UDP transport placeholders, input maps, macro maps, operator approval notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like atem_switcher_control, which is for actual control rather than scaffolding.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling atem_switcher_control implies a distinction between scaffold creation and actual control, the description never states this exclusion or provides any usage context.

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