Create NDI router matrix

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world, and non-destructive, but the description adds key behavioral context: this creates a scaffold and deliberately avoids live NDI discovery. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's limitations.

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 conveys purpose, scope, and a key limitation without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and readable.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description should explain what the scaffold consists of and what the parameters affect. It only provides a high-level statement, leaving significant ambiguity about the actual result and behavior. The description is too terse for complete understanding.

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?

The schema has only 33% parameter description coverage, with four of six parameters undocumented. The tool description does not mention any parameter semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on what 'output_count', 'source_count', 'include_preview', or 'active' actually control. The description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 a specific verb (create) and resource (NDI source/output routing matrix scaffold), and explicitly scopes it as 'stable' and 'without claiming live NDI discovery.' This distinguishes it from related sibling tools that might imply live discovery or different router types.

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 phrase 'stable scaffold without claiming live NDI discovery' provides clear context on when to use this tool: when a scaffold is needed and live discovery is not desired. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say 'use this instead of X,' so it falls short of a full 5.

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