Create NDI router matrix

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a write operation that is not destructive. It adds context beyond annotations by characterizing the result as a 'stable scaffold' and explicitly stating it does not claim live NDI discovery, which manages expectations about the tool's 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. Every word contributes meaning, and the key qualifier about live NDI discovery is placed at the end without bloating the text.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the scaffolding structure, how the source/output counts map to the matrix, or what 'stable' means in practice, leaving the agent with insufficient context to reliably 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?

Schema description coverage is low (33%, only name and parent_path described), and the description does not compensate by clarifying the meaning or relationship of parameters like output_count, source_count, or include_preview. Parameter names provide some obvious semantics, but the description adds no explicit detail, leaving users to guess at how these values shape the scaffold.

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?

Description states the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'NDI source/output routing matrix scaffold', clearly distinguishing from sibling router tools (e.g., osc_router_matrix, connect_spout_syphon_router). The qualifier 'without claiming live NDI discovery' further scopes the tool's purpose and sets it apart from discovery-focused tools.

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 offers a general sense of when to use the tool (for a stable NDI routing matrix scaffold) and hints at an exclusion (not for live NDI discovery), but it names no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. This leaves usage context implied rather than clearly stated.

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