obs_media_control

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the silent success no-op behavior, the need to inspect returned state, and the watchdog's failure mode on pausing/stopping a looping media source. This is strong 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 description is longer than average, but every section earns its place: purpose, no-op behavior, and a critical warning with a safer alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured by increasing risk.

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 and lack of output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the dangerous edge cases, directs the agent to check returned state, and provides an alternative workflow. The exact shape of the returned state is not detailed, but the guidance to inspect it is actionable.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes all parameters. The prose adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema for the action parameter (playlist-only, no-op on ffmpeg_source, looping-source watchdog behavior), but inputName/inputUuid are not enriched beyond what the schema already says.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Transport control for a media source' with the six actions. The action list clearly positions it against sibling tools like obs_media_status and obs_media_seek.

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 explicitly explains when next/previous are meaningful, warns they are no-ops on ffmpeg_source, says to check returned state, and names a concrete alternative command for the looping-media case. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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