Set Input Deinterlace Mode

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true (repeated calls are safe) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), which cover basic safety. The description does not add much beyond the annotations, but it does imply a state-change operation. It does not disclose potential side effects, such as requiring a restart of the input to take effect, or whether it affects output settings. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but lacks extra context.

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 that clearly states the action and target. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Set' and the resource. It uses no unnecessary words.FontWeight: There is no waste, but it lacks a bit of structure (e.g., no example of usage or output).

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 has 3 parameters, one of which is an enum with many values. The description does not explain the impact of different modes or the context of when to use this tool (e.g., for asynchronous inputs only). There is no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values, but it could clarify that the operation modifies the input's deinterlace property, affecting video processing. Given the moderate complexity, more completeness would be helpful.

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 has 67% description coverage: both inputName and inputUuid have descriptions, but inputDeinterlaceMode only has an enum without an explanatory description. The description of the tool adds no further meaning to the parameters. The enum values are self-explanatory as OBS deinterlace mode constants, but the description does not clarify what each mode does (e.g., YADIF vs. BLEND), which might be helpful. The baseline is 3 due to decent schema coverage, but no added value.

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 tool's function: setting the deinterlace mode of an input, with the specific resource (input) and the action (set mode). It distinguishes from related sibling tools like obs-get-input-deinterlace-mode (which retrieves) and obs-set-input-deinterlace-field-order (which sets a different property). The purpose is specific enough, though it doesn't mention that it only applies to asynchronous inputs, which is a key distinction.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'asynchronous input', which hints that it should only be used for inputs like video capture devices that support deinterlacing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for synchronous inputs or media files, nor does it mention any prerequisites like ensuring the input exists. There are sibling tools for setting related properties (e.g., field order), but no cross-referencing is provided.

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