Rename Input

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), idempotent operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as error conditions or uniqueness constraints, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotations present, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 complete sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with full parameter documentation and useful annotations. The description is sufficient for a simple rename operation, though it could optionally mention behavior when the input name does not exist or if the new name is invalid.

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%, and both parameters are clearly described as 'Current input name' and 'New name for the input'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full burden adequately, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Sets the name of an input (rename)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling rename tools like obs-set-scene-name or obs-set-source-filter-name by explicitly targeting inputs.

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: use this tool when you want to rename an input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as obs-set-input-settings, so guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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