streamdeck_create_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the main side effect (creating an executable script in a fixed directory) and the return value. It does not mention overwriting behavior, idempotency, permissions, or whether the StreamDeck app needs a restart or refresh.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and location before the return type, and every word contributes useful information.

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 side-effecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the most important facts: script location, executability, and return block type. But it leaves gaps around overwrite semantics and the exact structure of the returned Open action block, making it adequate rather than complete.

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%, so each parameter (name, command, filename, working_directory) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline 3.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('executable shell script in ~/StreamDeckScripts') and a distinct return type ('native Open action block'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like streamdeck_create_icon and streamdeck_write_page.

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: an agent can infer this is for creating script-backed actions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, such as when to prefer streamdeck_create_icon for icon assets or streamdeck_manage_profile for profile-level operations.

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