create_live

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description does not contradict them. It adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations: the stream key is redacted by default. However it omits other relevant traits such as permission/plan prerequisites and what the created stream's lifecycle looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, including the note about default key redaction.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, and those gaps are covered. But for a moderately complex creation tool it leaves the agent without usage context: no indication of required campaign/permission prerequisites, no distinction from update_live, and the 'early-access' qualifier is left unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed enum and per-field docs (state semantics, ISO 8601 scheduled_for, include_stream_key, live_access_rule_ids), so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description only echoes the stream-key redaction behavior, which duplicates the include_stream_key documentation, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create an early-access Patreon Live livestream.' The verb naturally separates it from the sibling read/update tools (get_live, update_live), but the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick create_live over update_live, what campaign/permission context is required, or what 'early-access' means for eligibility. The one routing hint ('fetch it with get_live(include_stream_key=true)') lives in the schema, not in the description.

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