Open Input Properties

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

The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond what annotations convey. It states the action but does not disclose side effects such as whether the dialog is modal, blocks execution, or requires user interaction. The idempotentHint=true annotation is helpful but not expanded upon; the description lacks details on what happens when the dialog is opened (e.g., if it auto-closes or remains).

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff or unnecessary qualifiers.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema, but the description lacks any mention of the expected behavior or return value. It doesn't state whether the tool returns a status code or success indicator, or if any side effects occur beyond opening the dialog. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable, but it could be more complete by noting that it is an asynchronous UI operation.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Name of the input' and 'UUID of the input'), so the description adds little extra meaning. It does not clarify whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, if one takes precedence, or if both are required. The coverage is high, so a baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Opens the properties dialog') and the resource ('of an input'), which is specific enough to differentiate from other input-related operations like getting or setting settings. It could be more explicit about distinguishing from similar tools like 'obs-get-input-settings', but it serves its purpose well.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that this is for interactive UI, while other methods are for programmatic access. There is no context on prerequisites or conditions that would make this the preferred choice.

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