Open Video Mix Projector

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as window behavior, effect of invalid parameters, or side effects. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes nothing beyond the 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 efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose with no filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.

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 simple open-projector action, the description and schema are minimally sufficient. However, there is no mention of when to use this tool, what happens when the projector opens, or any side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting among many similar OBS tools.

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 input schema fully covers all three parameters with descriptions, including the enum values for videoMixType and the meaning of monitorIndex. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the 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 a projector') and the target resource ('a specific output video mix'), which distinguishes it from the sibling obs-open-source-projector. The verb and object are specific and immediately understandable.

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 such as obs-open-source-projector, nor does it explain how to choose among the video mix types. There is no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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