Call OBS Request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful 'inspect first' behavioral safeguard and 'pinned protocol' context, but it does not elaborate on side effects, return behavior, or error cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the key prerequisite with no filler or redundant information.

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 generic call-any tool, the description plus annotations and full schema coverage provide sufficient selection and invocation context: it identifies the protocol, instructs to inspect first, and the schema defines both parameters. No output schema exists, but the return value is inherently the OBS response; a bit more on fallback use vs dedicated tools would improve completeness.

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 both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description reinforces that requestData is defined by obs-describe-request and that requestType must be exact, but it adds little 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 uses a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('any request in the pinned OBS WebSocket protocol'), making the tool's generic purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the many dedicated obs-* sibling tools by positioning itself as a catch-all request dispatcher.

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 instruction to 'inspect it with obs-describe-request first' provides an explicit prerequisite and workflow guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this generic tool over the dedicated sibling tools, nor does it list exclusions, so usage context is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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