set_streaming_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating action ('configure') but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether existing streaming sources are overwritten, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens to the actor's settings. There is no mention of reversibility or any constraints, leaving the agent without critical safety information.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. While it could include more detail, the sentence is efficiently constructed and does not waste the reader's time. However, it omits any usage guidance, which is a structural gap, but the conciseness itself is good.

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?

The description is minimal. It states only the purpose and lacks context about the operation's behavior, any prerequisites, or what the result will be. There is no output schema, so the description needs to explain what happens, but it does not. It also does not mention the radius or actor_name parameters, which are essential for the operation. For a tool that modifies a component on an actor, this is insufficiently complete for an agent to use safely and effectively.

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% — both 'radius' and 'actor_name' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the guidelines. The schema already explains that radius is a streaming radius in units and actor_name is the actor name or label.

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 'Configure a streaming source component on an actor for World Partition' clearly states a specific verb (configure), a specific resource (streaming source component on an actor), and the context (World Partition). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_data_layer_state or get_loaded_cells, which deal with different aspects of World Partition. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. With siblings like list_data_layers and get_loaded_cells, an agent might not know when to select this tool. The description simply states what it does, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.

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