IvedaAI: Nvr

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the response envelope ('status', 'truncated', 'timedOut') and notes that the PUT endpoint rejects partial bodies and maps brandId to brand.brandId. This is valuable operational detail that complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 a clear header and one section per endpoint, making it scannable. The initial response note is front-loaded. However, the same pagination query parameters and body specification are repeated verbatim across multiple endpoints, adding redundancy. The length is justified by the number of operations but could be condensed.

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 operations and their parameters, and the generic response envelope note helps set expectations. However, since there is no output schema, it does not specify per-endpoint return shapes or error conditions. Ambiguities remain (e.g., whether preview-channel returns a binary image, what the alert list contains). The reference to ivedaai_get_schema helps for requests but not responses.

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 description enumerates exact query and path parameters for each endpoint, including enums for protocol and nvrType, and specifies required body fields (brandId, ip, name, port). This far exceeds the generic input schema, which only provides empty 'query' and 'path' objects. It also points to ivedaai_get_schema for full body details. Minor deduction for using terse notations like '?:integer' and 'any' without deeper explanation.

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 'IvedaAI API — Nvr operations' and enumerates all HTTP endpoints (list, create, delete, find, update, list cameras, channels, preview, alerts, connection). This specific resource focus and endpoint list distinguishes it from sibling tools like ivedaai_camera and ivedaai_account.

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 endpoint is labeled with its intent (e.g., 'List Nvrs', 'Create Nvr'), giving clear operation-level guidance. However, there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Usage context is implied by the resource name and endpoint descriptions rather than stated.

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