update_live

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations or schema: the stream key is redacted by default (privacy/response handling). It omits the operationally important irreversibility of ending a stream, which only appears in the state parameter's schema text.

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 compact sentences, the core action front-loaded, with the redaction caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the mutation profile. However, for a state-machine mutation that can permanently end a livestream, the description should at least signal the irreversibility and the sibling boundaries that now live only in the schema and sibling list.

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% and the state parameter already documents the pre_live -> live -> live_ended lifecycle with the no-transitions-after-ended rule. The description's note that the stream key is redacted by default lightly reinforces include_stream_key, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear action (start or end a livestream) on a specific resource, which distinguishes it from create_live and get_live. It never uses the word 'update' or names the state-transition framing explicitly, so an agent must infer that this is the state-change tool, but the intent is still legible.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. It does not say to use create_live to set up a stream or get_live to inspect one, nor when a caller should pick 'live' vs 'live_ended'.

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