streamdeck_write_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys mutation ('replace/update') but fails to disclose the destructive default clear_existing=true ('Replace page contents (default: true)') buried in the schema, nor what happens to the active page or existing buttons. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence with the core verbs front-loaded ('Create a new page') and zero filler. Every word earns its place. It sacrifices substance for brevity, but on this dimension alone the structure is clean and appropriately sized.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. It omits how to distinguish the new-page flow from the update flow, the destructive clear_existing default, parameter dependencies, and interaction with profile-management siblings. An agent cannot invoke this correctly without reverse-engineering the schema and guessing intent.

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 56%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters (page_index, profile_id, directory_id, profile_name). The create-vs-update framing maps loosely to create_new and clear_existing, adding marginal meaning, but nothing is said about the four undocumented fields. Some value over the schema, but it doesn't fill the coverage gap.

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 uses specific verbs — 'Create', 'replace/update' — with a concrete resource, 'Stream Deck page'. It clearly identifies this as the page write operation, distinguishable from siblings like streamdeck_read_page and streamdeck_delete_page by verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't state when to choose this over streamdeck_manage_profile, streamdeck_create_action, or streamdeck_delete_page, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a profile_id or directory_id before writing. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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