resume_delay_live_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('取消直播延时') but lacks behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to the stream (e.g., goes live immediately), rate limits, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose ('取消直播延时'), followed by parameter and return sections. However, the parameter listing is redundant with the schema, and the return statement ('请求ID') is vague without context. It could be more efficient by omitting the Args/Returns boilerplate.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '取消直播延时' entails behaviorally, what '请求ID' means (e.g., for tracking), error handling, or dependencies. Given the complexity of live streaming operations, more context is needed for safe 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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., '推流路径，与推流和播放地址中的AppName保持一致'). The description lists parameters but adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage 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 '取消直播延时' (cancel live stream delay) clearly states the verb (cancel) and resource (live stream delay). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_delay_live_stream' (add delay) and 'resume_live_stream' (resume stream without specifying delay). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of delay is being canceled (e.g., buffer delay vs. scheduled delay), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have an active delayed stream), contrast with 'resume_live_stream' (which might resume without affecting delay), or mention error conditions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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