Connect Blackmagic ATEM

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful context about creating placeholders and maps. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing components or whether network access is required, which would enhance transparency beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence that packs substantial detail without excessive verbosity. It could be more structured (e.g., separated into two sentences) but remains efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no mention of return values or prerequisites, the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity. It does not state what the scaffold will include in relation to the parameters or what the agent should expect after invocation, leaving significant gaps.

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 only 33%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters. While some parameter names are self-explanatory, ambiguous ones like 'include_cut_auto' and 'active' remain undocumented, providing minimal guidance for agents.

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 creates a Blackmagic ATEM command-map scaffold, specifying the verb 'Create' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'atem_switcher_control' by noting it builds a scaffold with placeholders, input maps, macro maps, and operator approval notes.

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 implies this tool is for initial scaffolding rather than direct control, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the intended context from the tool name and sibling list.

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