Connect video stream receiver

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, indicating a mutating creation operation, which the description aligns with ('Create a Video Stream In TOP scaffold'). The description adds value by specifying the protocol types and the inclusion of stream maps and setup notes, giving more concrete behavioral context beyond the 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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without redundancy. Every phrase adds information: the action, the target component, the protocol list, and the included artifacts.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to correctly configure the tool. It does not explain parameter semantics, default behaviors, or what the scaffold will look like. While the annotations provide safety cues, the description leaves significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 33%, with descriptions only for 'name' and 'parent_path'. The description mentions protocols (RTSP, HLS, SRT, WebRTC) that map to the 'mode' enum, but it does not clarify the meaning or expected values for 'url', 'active', 'latency_ms', or 'parent_path'. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter clarity.

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 specific action ('Create a Video Stream In TOP scaffold') and resource, listing supported protocols (RTSP, HLS, SRT, WebRTC) and additional outputs (stream maps, setup notes). This distinguishes it from broader 'connect' siblings by naming the specific TOP type and purpose.

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 usage for setting up video ingestion via a Video Stream In TOP, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like connect_webrtc_browser_input or other connect_* tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving some ambiguity.

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