npm_create_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about whether the stream is created enabled or disabled, port-availability constraints, certificate/SSL implications despite certificate-related parameters, or what happens on conflict.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is efficient. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter mutation tool, but by the conciseness criterion there is no waste.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the lifecycle context (created enabled or disabled), SSL/certificate behavior, and any interaction with the existing stream tooling. It leaves the agent under-equipped to call it correctly beyond the required fields.

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 100%, so all seven parameters including SSL domain names, certificate_id, and TCP/UDP forwarding flags are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Create) and resource (TCP/UDP stream proxy), which is clear enough to distinguish from npm_create_proxy_host or npm_create_redirection_host. However, it never explicitly names the sibling or explains how a 'stream' proxy differs from a 'proxy host'.

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 stream creation versus HTTP proxy host or redirection host creation, and no prerequisites or follow-up steps (e.g., enable_stream) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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