IvedaAI: LineSet

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

The description provides valuable behavioral context: it explains the response JSON format (status, truncated, timedOut), notes a field-name discrepancy between GET and PATCH/PUT, and confirms that omitted fields are left alone. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate destructive=true.

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 well-organized with each operation on a separate line and parameters listed compactly. However, the NOTE about cameraId and omitted fields is duplicated verbatim for both PATCH and PUT, which adds minor redundancy.

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 tool with six operations, the description is quite complete: it covers endpoints, params, response status, and special edge cases. It stops short of describing the full LineSet object structure, but it explicitly defers to ivedaai_get_schema, which mitigates this gap.

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 supplies generic 'query' and 'path' objects, but the description enumerates all query parameters with types and enums, lists required body fields (cameraId, name), and references ivedaai_get_schema for full details. This is essential for the agent to construct valid requests.

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 the tool as handling LineSet operations and enumerates all six endpoints with explicit verbs (Find, Create, Delete, Get, Patch, Update). This distinguishes it from sibling resource tools and gives a precise scope.

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?

Each operation is briefly described (e.g., 'Find lineSets', 'Create lineSet') and includes its parameters, making it obvious which operation to use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose PATCH vs PUT or when to use this tool over related tools like ivedaai_roi or ivedaai_counting.

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