Go live

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the real-world side effects (camera and mic activated, audience sees/hears the local machine) and the media-source fallback via GIFOS_BOOTH_CAMERA_FILE. It omits failure/idempotency behavior (already live, missing meeting, permission errors) and does not state whether the action is reversible except implicitly via end_broadcast.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the effect is front-loaded and the fallback condition follows immediately. No restatement of the title or filler.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, this covers what the action does and the key branch to a sibling. The remaining gap is state prerequisite and error behavior, which matters somewhat for a live-broadcast mutation but is minor at this size.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema description already covers it fully (schema coverage 100%), including its origin from create_broadcast or join_broadcast. The description adds no additional semantics about meeting_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Starts the live broadcast') and immediately specifies the concrete effect: host camera and microphone on, viewers hear and see the host from this computer. That distinguishes it clearly from siblings like play_video and share_content, which do not turn on local devices.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and an explicit alternative: it needs a camera on this computer (or GIFOS_BOOTH_CAMERA_FILE), and without one the agent should call play_video instead. It does not mention other relevant states (e.g., whether the booth must be open via open_booth first, or what happens if already live), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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