start_stream

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 states this is a 'Start' action, implying a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens if a stream is already running, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Start a new stream') and adds a brief qualifier ('with optional settings'). There is no wasted language, and every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.

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 this is a mutation tool (starting a stream) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential side effects, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that likely creates a resource, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (title, description, privacy) with descriptions and an enum for privacy. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are 'optional settings', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Start a new stream') which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'stream' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_current_stream' or 'stop_stream'. The 'optional settings' part adds some specificity but remains general.

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 like 'update_stream_settings' or 'stop_stream'. It mentions 'optional settings' but doesn't clarify what scenarios require starting a new stream versus modifying an existing one or what prerequisites might be needed.

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