obs_create_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a mutating action (create) and gives useful examples of input kinds, but it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist), or the fact that inputSettings might be required for certain kinds. It does not contradict annotations since none are provided.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists common examples. It is efficient and without fluff, though it could be slightly longer to cover parameter semantics without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential guidance on inputKind but lacks details about inputSettings, required fields per kind, potential errors, or the result of the operation. It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for advanced usage.

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?

The input schema provides only names and types for the 4 parameters, and the description does not explicitly describe the parameters. However, it does explain the possible values for inputKind, which is a key parameter. It does not explain the meaning of sceneName, inputName, or inputSettings beyond what the schema showsable. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more but only partially does.

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 purpose: 'Create a new source in a scene' and provides a comprehensive list of common input kinds with their use cases. This distinguishes it from siblings like obs_create_scene (which creates scenes) and obs_remove_input (which removes inputs).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when you need to create a new source in a scene. It provides a list of common input kinds, guiding selection of the inputKind parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for modifying or removing sources, though siblings like obs_set_input_settings and obs_remove_input exist.

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