Start Output

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint: false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context, such as what happens if the output is already started, prerequisites, or error handling. For a mutation tool, the description should clarify side effects, but it remains silent, leaving the annotations to carry the full burden without any added value.

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 zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward action, and the message is front-loaded. No redundancy or padding exists.

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?

Given that this is a mutating operation with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is overly sparse. It fails to convey what starting an output entails—whether the output must exist, if it can be restarted, or if any state changes are expected. The sibling tools suggest a broader output management context, but this description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently execute the action without additional assumptions.

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 schema includes a single parameter 'outputName' with a basic description ('Output name'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints for the parameter, such as valid formats, required precision, or examples. It simply repeats the parameter's purpose.

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 'Starts an output' clearly conveys a specific action (start) on a resource (output). It is unambiguous and the verb-resource pairing is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool that toggles outputs (obs-toggle-output), which could also start an output if it is not running. The name hints at the distinction, but the description itself doesn't mention when to use start over toggle.

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 explicit or implicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obs-toggle-output or obs-stop-output. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context. Sibling tools provide related functionality, but no usage direction is given.

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