OBS Config Migrate

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

Annotations are minimal: readOnlyHint=false (it performs a transform, consistent), openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Pure transform, instant' clarifying it's a non-destructive, synchronous operation. It also discloses 'Powered by api.meshtool.ai' indicating an external API dependency and '1 MESH/call' stating a cost metric. However, it doesn't explain whether the output is returned directly or stored, or what happens to files on failure. Some useful context beyond annotations, but modest.

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 compact at roughly two sentences plus usage metadata. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds cost/metric detail ('1 MESH/call') and API attribution. Every sentence earns its place, though the trailing '(a tool · tooling)' tag is arguably noise. Efficient overall.

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 stateless, single-input transform tool, the description mostly covers what's needed. However, there is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format (e.g., does it return converted files? a manifest? errors on unsupported files?). The description doesn't address output shape, which matters given the input is a multi-file map and the transform is the entire point. The nested object structure and 1 required param keep complexity moderate, but the missing output contract is a notable gap.

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 100% — the single 'input' param has an embedded description for 'files' (the required map) and 'rec_path' (Windows recording output path). The description adds brief context about the file types expected ('global.ini, basic.ini, scene JSON') which complements but doesn't substantially extend the schema. Since the description lists the same file types as the schema's files field, marginal added value; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Convert Mac OBS config files (global.ini, basic.ini, scene JSON) to Windows-compatible versions.' It clearly identifies what files are processed and the conversion direction (Mac→Windows). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but none of the sibling tools perform config migration, so no differentiation is needed. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 when to use it (when migrating OBS configs from Mac to Windows) but doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternate tool references. It mentions 'Pure transform, instant' suggesting a stateless conversion, but doesn't explain what happens to the original files or if there are prerequisites. The implied usage is clear from the domain-specific focus, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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