Add media

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it supports local files and network inputs, and can position/size the new scene item immediately. This is useful but does not reveal side effects like whether existing sources are replaced or whether the source is immediately active. Given annotations cover the mutation nature, this is a reasonable middle score.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds key capabilities. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 18 parameters and low schema description coverage. The description is too brief to adequately cover the full set of parameters and their interactions. It does not explain behaviors like loop, autoplay, network seekability, or restart on activation. For a tool this complex, the description is incomplete.

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 only 17% (only source, sceneId, sceneName have descriptions). The description only hints at parameters like position/size (x, y, width, height, fit) and source mode (local/network), but does not explain the many other parameters such as loop, autoplay, speedPercent, clearOnMediaEnd, etc. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not provide sufficient parameter-level guidance.

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 states the action: 'Create an OBS Media Source in a scene.' It specifies the resource (OBS Media Source) and the context (scene), and it differentiates from sibling tools like media_list and media_remove by using the verb 'Create.' It also adds specific capabilities (local/network inputs, immediate positioning/sizing) that further define its scope.

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 implies usage—when you need to add media to a scene—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like media_play or media_control. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so the agent must infer context from the verb 'Create.' This is adequate but not explicit.

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