Connect Twitch EventSub bus

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds behavioral nuance with 'scaffold' (implying a template rather than a fully wired connection) and 'OAuth/webhook safety notes' (indicating security considerations). It does not contradict annotations and provides some context beyond the structured hints.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then packs the key output components into a concise list. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase contributes meaningful information about what the scaffold includes.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the function of key parameters (port, netaddress, event_count, adapter_mode, etc.), nor what the scaffold does after creation, prerequisites, or return behavior. The description leaves significant gaps in the operational picture.

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 only 18% (2 of 11 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description does not map its listed components to any parameter names or explain formats/types. Terms like 'reward maps' and 'moderation policy' hint at reward_count and moderation_level, but this is too indirect to compensate for the large undocumented parameter set.

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 resource ('Twitch EventSub/chat scaffold'), and enumerates concrete components (sanitized event rows, reward maps, moderation policy, adapter source, OAuth/webhook safety notes). This clearly distinguishes it from other connect_*_bus sibling tools by naming Twitch EventSub explicitly.

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 makes the intended use clear: it is for creating a Twitch EventSub/chat scaffold. It implies when to use this tool (when needing Twitch EventSub integration), and the specificity of 'Twitch' differentiates it from similar chat bus tools (e.g., YouTube, TikTok). However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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