Toggle Replay Buffer

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

Annotations are present: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description does not contradict these annotations. Since it is a toggle operation, it is understood to be a state-changing action with no destructive or idempotent guarantees, but the description does not add further behavioral context such as what happens if the replay buffer is not enabled or whether the toggle returns the new state. The annotations carry most of the burden, and the description adds minimal additional 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target: 'Toggles the state of the replay buffer output'. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate. However, in the context of many sibling tools for replay buffer control (start, stop, save, get status), it lacks context on how toggling fits into the workflow, such as whether the agent should check status first or what happens if the buffer is already in the desired state. The description could be slightly more complete by mentioning these aspects.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema explicitly shows an empty properties object with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here as the description correctly implies no parameters are required.

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 it toggles the state of the replay buffer output with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like obs-start-replay-buffer, obs-stop-replay-buffer, and obs-get-replay-buffer-status, which are closely related and could benefit from a clearer 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 by stating 'toggles', suggesting it is used to flip the current state of the replay buffer. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus starting or stopping the replay buffer directly, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context in which toggling is preferred over explicit start/stop actions.

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