IvedaAI: Hashtag

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by detailing the response JSON structure (status, truncated, timedOut) and the exact body shapes for POST and PUT. It also clarifies that DELETE requires a path keyword, which is useful for understanding the tool's behavior. No security or rate-limit details, but the added response and parameter information exceeds the baseline.

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 structured with a brief intro and a clear list of endpoints with parameters. It is front-loaded with the response format note, and each line provides necessary information without excessive verbosity. Slightly dense, but every sentence serves a purpose, so it earns a high score.

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 tool's multi-operation complexity, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers all four operations, their parameters, and the response format. It lacks authentication details and examples, but for an API tool with rich schema and annotations, this is sufficient. The description compensates for the missing output schema by explaining response fields.

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?

Although the schema has 100% property descriptions, the tool description enriches parameters by specifying per-operation details: query for GET, string body for POST, object with cameraId/hashtags for PUT, and path keyword for DELETE. This operation-specific parameter meaning is not fully captured by the generic schema fields, so the description adds meaningful parameter semantics.

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 it covers 'Hashtag operations' and lists four specific HTTP endpoints with distinct verbs and purposes (Find, Create, Setup live, Delete). This accurately distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on other resources, and the operation enum aligns with the listed endpoints.

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 implies usage for hashtag-related operations, and the operation list provides specific contexts for each endpoint (e.g., finding by prefix, creating with a string body). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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