Create DeckLink I/O router

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

Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential external effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the behavioral detail of 'hardware-gated safety notes,' but does not disclose what happens without hardware, whether it modifies the project, or what the scaffold contains.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the verb, object, and key features without extraneous words.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level purpose. It leaves unanswered questions about return values, parameter behavior, and the meaning of 'hardware-gated safety notes,' making it insufficient for fully informed invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 29%, the description does little to compensate. It references 'route maps' which maps loosely to route_count, but does not explain name, active, parent_path, input_device, output_device, or signal_format beyond their defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('Blackmagic DeckLink video-device input/output router scaffold'), and elaborates with 'route maps and hardware-gated safety notes.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling router tools like create_ndi_router_matrix or create_osc_router_matrix.

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 DeckLink hardware routing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The mention of 'scaffold' hints at initial setup, but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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