IvedaAI: AnalyticConfig

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful context about the response format (status, truncated/timedOut) which aids in handling cut-off responses. However, it does not disclose consequences of DELETE/PATCH operations (e.g., irreversibility) or any authorization requirements. It adds some value beyond annotations but not comprehensive.

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 dense and well-organized: a brief note on response format, then each operation on a single line with parameters. No fluff, every line contributes value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 covers all five endpoints, required/optional parameters, and response metadata, which is sufficient for operation selection and basic invocation. It lacks examples or detailed return structure (no output schema), but for a CRUD tool of this complexity it is fairly complete, though not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema only provides generic fields (body, path, query, operation) with minimal descriptions. The tool description goes far beyond by detailing exact parameter names, types, required flags, and location for each endpoint (e.g., cameraId*:integer, config*:JsonObject). This is essential for correct invocation and fully compensates for the schema's generic nature.

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 identifies this as the AnalyticConfig API resource, listing all five CRUD operations with specific HTTP verbs and endpoints. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific resource (analytic-configs) and operations.

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 the tool: when working with analytic configs, and the endpoint list makes the scope obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools among the many IvedaAI siblings.

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