Connect OBS Recorder

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details, notably that the OBS password is passed only to the bridge payload and redacted from all returned reports, which is a meaningful security behavior. It also mentions optional publishing paths. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive open-world creation, so the bar is lower and these additions are appreciated.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first packs in the core action and components; the second clarifies security handling. Every clause earns its place, making the description appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 complex 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of what is produced (scaffold, DATs, templates) and the optional output mode. It lacks explicit explanation of the scaffold concept or runtime prerequisites, but the schema covers parameter details, so it is sufficiently complete.

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% with every parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the password being optional and redacted adds a small bit beyond the schema, but overall it does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 creates a TouchDesigner-side OBS control scaffold with specific components (obs-websocket v5 request templates, status/setup DATs, optional NDI/Syphon/Spout publishing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obs_stream_control by focusing on scaffold creation and setup.

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 needing to set up OBS recording integration within TouchDesigner, providing clear context on what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like obs_stream_control or connect_vmix_production, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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