obs_virtual_cam

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the separate output nature, the trap behavior of toggle, and the limitations of status (only reports active, not consumers). This goes beyond what structured data could convey.

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 detailed yet every sentence earns its place: clear purpose, safety note, actionable trap warning, and status semantics. It is front-loaded and well-structured, avoiding unnecessary fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, it is thoroughly complete: it covers action nuances, safety, and status interpretation. It even anticipates potential misuse and provides clear guidance, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The parameter 'action' is fully described in schema, but the tool description adds substantial meaning: it warns against toggle, explains the risk of unintended turn-off, and gives context on status behavior. This enriches the schema enum descriptions.

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 tool manages OBS's virtual webcam output, distinguishing it from stream/record controls with the statement 'it is a separate output' and referencing 'unlike the stream and record controls'. This gives a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: it explains it's safe to touch during live broadcasts, and strongly advises using start/stop over toggle with detailed rationale ('prefer start and stop over toggle... it acts on a state it did not check'). It also clarifies the read-only nature of status and its limitations.

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