Press Input Property Button

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation with potential side effects. The description adds nothing beyond the literal action of pressing a button; it does not disclose potential consequences, reversibility, or any effects on the input's state. No value added beyond 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 sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 description is minimal and fails to provide sufficient context for a destructive operation. It does not clarify how to identify the input (inputName vs inputUuid), mention that this could trigger side effects, or explain any prerequisites. Given the absence of an output schema and the destructive annotation, more context is needed to use the tool correctly.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning, such as the relationship between inputName and inputUuid (e.g., that at least one should be provided) or what propertyName refers to. Since the schema already documents the parameters, baseline 3 applies, and no extra context is provided.

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 that the tool presses a button exposed by an input property. The verb 'press' is specific and the resource is defined as a button on an input property, which distinguishes it from other input-related tools like obs-set-input-settings or obs-trigger-media-input-action. However, it could be more explicit about what an 'input property' is, so not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether this is for interactive buttons that open dialogs or trigger actions, nor does it suggest when not to use it. No alternatives are referenced.

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