Remove Input

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It simply states the action. No mention of irreversibility, effects on scene items, or error conditions. Since annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no extra context, but it doesn't contradict either.

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 concise sentence, directly stating the purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the action and good for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description, combined with the schema and annotations, is mostly complete. It lacks context about potential failure modes or prerequisites, but the operation is straightforward. A score of 4 reflects that it's adequate but could mention if the input needs to exist or if removal cascades to scene items.

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%, so the parameter 'inputName' is fully described in the schema ('Name of the input to remove'). The description does not add any additional meaning or examples. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Removes an existing input' clearly identifies the action (remove) and the resource (input). It distinguishes from siblings like obs-create-input and obs-set-input-name by specifying the remove operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage from the action, but doesn't mention any use cases or exclusions. For example, it doesn't contrast with obs-remove-source-filter or obs-remove-scene.

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