Connect MadMapper surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate that this is a write operation. However, it adds little extra beyond the literal action; 'source handoff notes' is a feature hint, not a disclosure of side effects, prerequisites, or what changes in the project. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not meaningfully enhance behavioral transparency.

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. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose and the key handoff modes. It is appropriately sized for the information it carries.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only cover high-level safety hints, the description gives no information about the scaffold's structure, default behavior, or what the resulting 'surface' and 'handoff notes' entail. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 40% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters, but it does not. It mentions Syphon/Spout and NDI, which loosely align with the handoff_mode enum, but provides no meaning for the many network and count parameters (ports, host, media_count, surface_count, etc.). This leaves the agent to guess at parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('MadMapper OSC surface/media control scaffold'), and further specifies the inclusion of source handoff notes for Syphon/Spout/NDI. This distinctly differentiates it from other connect_* tools by naming MadMapper OSC as the target.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description simply restates the tool's purpose without contextualizing it among the many similar connect_* siblings.

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