game_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists a few action verbs. It does not explain side effects, node creation requirements, return values for 'get_status', or behavior of properties like volume/loop/autoplay, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but slightly under-specified given the tool's six actions and nine parameters, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

This is a multi-action tool with nine parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers four of the six actions and gives no guidance on creation semantics, status retrieval, or expected outputs. The description is not complete enough for an agent to handle all supported actions correctly.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond listing some actions, and it does not clarify how actions map to parameters or what 'get_status' returns, so it meets only the baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource (VideoStreamPlayer) and the core verbs (play, pause, stop, seek), which distinguishes it from audio or animation tools. However, it omits two supported actions from the schema ('create' and 'get_status'), so the purpose is not fully complete.

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 phrase 'Video playback control: ... on VideoStreamPlayer' gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but among the siblings there is no direct alternative video tool, so this is adequate though not thorough.

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