create_rtsps_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses case-insensitive normalization, absence of local allow-list validation, upstream API authority over invalid channel names, and the special behavior of the 'package' channel. It stops short of discussing side effects or lifecycle of the created stream, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, and each parameter has a focused block of detail. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 output schema exists and no annotations are present, the description covers parameters and edge behavior thoroughly. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites, whether existing streams are replaced, and authentication expectations, but nothing critical is missing for invoking this tool.

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%, but the description fully compensates. It explains host formats, enumerates the valid qualities, clarifies case-insensitivity, documents the no-local-validation behavior, and tells the agent exactly where to obtain camera_id. This goes far beyond the bare input schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an RTSPS stream for a Protect camera.' This is clear and the create/get/delete distinction among siblings is obvious from the name, though the description itself does not explicitly contrast it with get_rtsps_stream or delete_rtsps_stream.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' and the guidance to obtain camera_id from list_cameras. It references get_rtsps_stream as a verification source, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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