Stream Go

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the approval logging requirement, that file venues need no approval, key checking before start, handling of already-live venues, and the audio/video behavior. It lacks details on error handling or failure modes, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and is generally efficient. Some sentences are dense and combine multiple concepts, but each contributes useful information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is not verbose.

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's complexity (streaming, approval, venues, audio/video), the lack of annotations, and 0% schema descriptions, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits failure modes and return-value details, but an output schema exists to cover the latter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: venues (names or 'all'), approved (the person's exact words, logged with time), and video (picture settings as in stream_visual). It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the exact format of the venues array.

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 and resource: 'Start streaming the live set to these venues.' It distinguishes between venue types and 'all'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like stream_start, which likely has overlapping functionality; an agent must infer the distinction.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: starting a stream, adding a venue mid-set, and the approval requirement for public venues. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the conditions and examples are sufficient to guide correct invocation.

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