Connect video stream receiver

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Create' aligns. It adds that the scaffold includes stream maps and setup notes, but lacks details on side effects, network access, or prerequisites. No contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Video Stream In TOP scaffold', with no redundant or extraneous words.

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?

The description communicates the core purpose and protocol support, but the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no mention of network behavior or node creation side effects. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 33% (name and parent_path have descriptions). The description indirectly hints at mode via protocols and url via 'ingest', but does not explain active, latency_ms, or url specifics, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 it creates a Video Stream In TOP scaffold for RTSP/HLS/SRT/WebRTC ingest, which is specific and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like connect_webrtc_browser_input, but the protocol list gives a clear scope.

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 that this is for video streaming ingest via RTSP, HLS, SRT, or WebRTC. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the protocol scope serves as a practical guideline.

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