IvedaAI: Footage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's DELETE and PUT (cancel) operations align with this. The description adds useful response flags ('status', 'truncated', 'timedOut') and parameter format constraints (e.g., startTime as 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss'). However, it does not explain side effects of cancellation, deletion, or any authentication or rate-limit behaviors, so it only partially supplements the annotation.

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 longer than average but highly structured as an endpoint list with parameters. The initial response JSON note is front-loaded. There is no redundant prose; every line carries operational information. It is an efficient API reference, although the sheer length might be slightly overwhelming, but each item is necessary.

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?

This tool encapsulates four operations with many parameters and no output schema. The description covers all endpoints, parameter details, and the top-level response fields, which is helpful. However, it omits the footage data structure, error responses, or any example, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the return payload or handle failures. Given the complexity, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 is generic for 'query', 'path', and 'body' with no property-level detail. The description compensates by listing concrete query parameters (offset, page, ainvrIds, startTime, etc.) with types and formats, and the path parameter footageId with its integer type. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it still does not explain the functional purpose of every filter (e.g., what ainvrIds represents).

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 'Footage operations' and enumerates specific endpoints: list, delete, get by id, and cancel footage. It is unambiguous about the resource type and distinguishes from sibling tools like ivedaai_camera or ivedaai_media. However, it lacks a consolidated one-sentence purpose, instead relying on REST endpoint syntax, which slightly reduces clarity for non-specialists.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. The only implied usage comes from the tool title and the endpoint list. It also does not help the agent decide which operation to invoke beyond listing the operations without contextual recommendations.

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