update_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral fact: exec:/echo:/expr: sources are rejected unless GO2RTC_ALLOW_EXEC_STREAMS=true. However, it omits any mention of auth/permissions and does not clarify whether the update replaces the stream's full source set or merges into 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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, constraint second. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 described. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves gaps: no auth requirements, no statement of whether unspecified fields are cleared, and only partial coverage of what source_url accepts.

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%, so the schema alone explains nothing about the two params. The description partially compensates by constraining valid source_url values (no exec:/echo:/expr:), but stream_name and the replace-vs-merge semantics of source_url remain unaddressed.

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 ('update an existing stream') plus the underlying endpoint (PATCH /api/streams), which lets an agent distinguish it from add_stream and delete_stream. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling boundary (e.g., 'use add_stream to create'), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'an existing stream' implies a precondition (the stream must already exist), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to add_stream/delete_stream. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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