Create DeckLink I/O router

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds that it produces a scaffold with route maps and safety notes, but it does not clarify what 'hardware-gated' entails or what external side effects may occur given the openWorldHint annotation. It provides some additional context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 that effectively communicates the core purpose. Every word contributes to the message, with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and appropriately structured.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (7 parameters, openWorldHint, many sibling alternatives), the description is severely incomplete. It leaves out parameter semantics, usage guidance, and concrete behavioral details beyond a vague mention of 'hardware-gated safety notes.' This is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

With schema description coverage of only 29%, 5 of 7 parameters lack meaningful descriptions, and the tool description does not mention any parameter details. The agent is left uninformed about critical parameters like route_count, signal_format, or input_device. The description completely fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool creates a 'Blackmagic DeckLink video-device input/output router scaffold' with specific features like 'route maps' and 'hardware-gated safety notes.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from similar router-creation tools such as create_ndi_router_matrix or 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 no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention any context in which this tool should be preferred over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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