Connect WebRTC browser input

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external side effects are known. The description adds that it creates a 'scaffold' and that data is supplied by an external signaling app, but it does not disclose concrete side effects like adding a COMP at parent_path or attempting to connect to signaling_url. No contradiction with 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 with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Create' and the resource. It efficiently packs the key aspects: scaffold type, data sources, and the external signaling dependency, making it very concise.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, what 'scaffold' concretely entails, or prerequisites like browser-side setup. The external signaling app note is useful, but the description leaves too much to inference for an agent to use it correctly.

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 29%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies input_mode by listing data types (webcam, screen, pointer, sensor) and indirectly references signaling_url, but it leaves active, room_id, include_data_channels, and name without meaningful explanation. The description adds partial value but is insufficient for several parameters.

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 browser/WebRTC input scaffold for webcam, screen, pointer, and sensor data. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'external signaling app' adds scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like connect_video_stream_receiver, but the name and description are specific enough.

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 when browser-based media input is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context about an external signaling app hints at a use case, but there is no direct comparison to other connect_* tools.

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