ecamm_start_stop

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the action is state-dependent (starts OR ends depending on the current button label), and confirm: true is required, with omission producing a dry run. It stops short of saying whether ending a live broadcast is irreversible or what happens to an in-progress recording.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before parameter notes. Capitalized emphasis on STARTS OR ENDS earns its place by preventing a costly misread. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a four-optional-parameter, no-output-schema, destructive toggle, the definition covers what the action does, the state-dependent nature, the confirm/dry-run contract, and the source of destination values. The main remaining gap is guidance on verifying current state before invoking, given there is no output schema to report the result.

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 coverage is only 25% (confirm is the sole documented property), so the description must compensate, and it largely does. It explains that destination comes from ecamm_list, that title/description apply only when creating a new broadcast, and that confirm must be true. It still does not say whether destination/title are ignored when ending a broadcast, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it clicks the main Go Live / Record / End button and starts or ends a broadcast or recording. The dual, state-dependent behavior is stated explicitly with emphasis, so an agent understands this is a single toggle rather than a start-only or stop-only action. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as ecamm_toggle or ecamm_recording, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: you call it to begin or end a live broadcast or recording. The description helpfully points to ecamm_list for valid destination values, which is real routing guidance. However, it gives no when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if a broadcast is already running) and no pointer to a status-check tool before this destructive toggle.

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