delete_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive mutation and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about irreversibility, behavior when the stream does not exist, permission requirements, or whether other streams are affected.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trailing endpoint reference is mildly redundant but genuinely useful for agents reasoning about the go2rtc API surface.

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 not be explained, but for a destructive, unannotated tool with 0% parameter coverage the description is too thin. An agent gets no safety, error, or identifier-format context before issuing a delete.

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 0% and the description says nothing about stream_name — not whether it must exactly match a registered name, whether it is case-sensitive, or what happens on a mismatch. The single required parameter is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a dynamically registered stream'), and the 'dynamically registered' qualifier scopes it meaningfully. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_stream or add_stream, but the verb alone makes the distinction obvious.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but 'dynamically registered' implies a constraint (only runtime-registered streams, not statically configured ones), which is weak implied usage guidance. No alternatives are named.

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