Create show failover

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are minimal, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the exact chain of operators (Switch TOP, Filter CHOP, Info CHOP), how stall detection works (total_cooks delta), sticky-recover logic, and what happens when no primary or fallback is provided (noiseTOP/constantTOP). It also discloses the controls exposed and return values, going far beyond the annotation booleans.

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 dense but purposeful. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and subsequent sentences explain the mechanism, controls, and return values. No sentence is wasted; each adds specific technical detail (e.g., 'blend=1 cross-dissolve', 'total_cooks delta', 'Filter CHOP smooths') that helps an agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned ('container, output TOP, status CHOP, control names, operator paths'). It covers major behavioral aspects including defaults (noiseTOP/constantTOP), sticky-recover, error watching, and exposed controls. Given the complexity of the 9-parameter system, the description provides a complete and intelligible overview.

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 100% with each parameter already having a detailed description. The tool description does not add new per-parameter semantics but does mention some parameters (fade_ms, stall_ms, sticky_recover) within the overall system context, reinforcing their role. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Build a live-show watchdog' which is a specific verb+resource, and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_safety_blackout_chain or create_panic by detailing the failover mechanism (Switch TOP, Info CHOP, watchdog CHOP-Execute). It clearly states what the tool produces: a container, output TOP, status CHOP, control names, and operator paths.

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 clearly implies the use case: creating an automatic failover system for live shows that detects cook stalls and optionally primary errors. It explains the behavior and controls, giving context on when it would be relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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