tomo_control_room

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the three possible actions (pause, resume, restart), but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., room must be active), or whether these actions are reversible. For a control tool, this is an adequate starting point but lacks depth. Score of 3 reflects a clear but basic 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 sentence of 6 words—no wasted verbiage. Every word earns its place by directly stating the verb and resource. This is a model of conciseness.

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 simple control tool with just 2 parameters (both required, one enum), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not specifying that the room must exist or be in a valid state for the action to succeed, which would improve completeness. Score of 4 is fitting given the low 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. The description lists the three actions, which maps to the 'action' enum parameter. However, it does not explain the 'roomId' parameter beyond the schema or clarify any format constraints. Given only 2 parameters with 0% coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate—the description adds some context but not enough to fully compensate.

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 set ('Pause, resume or restart') targeting a clear resource ('a streaming room'). This makes the purpose highly distinct from siblings like 'tomo_create_room', 'tomo_delete_room', or 'tomo_get_room' which have completely different actions.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool—when you need to modify the state of a room after creation. It does not explicitly provide 'when not to use' or name alternative tools for similar tasks, but the sibling list provides enough contrast (e.g., not for creating or deleting rooms). A score of 4 is appropriate for clear but not exhaustive guidance.

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