streamdeck_write_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns about the app overwriting behavior, the refusal to write without auto_quit_app, and the need to restart. However, it does not detail error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the app is not installed.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only essential warnings and follow-up instructions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and critical parameters well. It mentions the restart requirement. However, it does not describe the return value or confirmation message, which would be helpful for an agent to verify success.

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 70% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by highlighting the auto_quit_app parameter's critical role and explaining the consequence of not using it. Other parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the extra description is concise and targeted.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new page or replace/update an existing Stream Deck desktop page manifest.' It specifies the verb (create/replace/update) and the resource (page manifest), and distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with actions, icons, or reading pages.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including the critical warning about the app overwriting manifests on quit, the requirement to pass auto_quit_app=True when the app is running, and the follow-up recommendation to call streamdeck_restart_app to apply changes. This clearly differentiates usage from other tools.

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