start_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about side effects, failure modes (e.g., already streaming, no configured destination), idempotency, or expected state change. For a live-broadcast mutation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of a rich description.

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 zero-param streaming control with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still needs to know prerequisites (stream key/target configured), the resulting state, and how it pairs with stop_stream and get_stream_state. None of that is provided, leaving the definition incomplete for the operation it performs.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no arguments whose meaning the description would need to supplement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start streaming.' However, the qualifier 'on the primary streamer' adds little and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like start_record or explains the relationship to stop_stream/get_stream_state, so no sibling differentiation is present.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus start_record, nor any precondition such as a configured stream target or a warning about calling it while already streaming. The agent is left to infer the entire usage context from the name alone.

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