obs-offset-media-input-cursor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'offsets' a cursor position, implying a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or queued, what happens on invalid offsets, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Offsets'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as hinting at relative vs. absolute positioning.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description lacks the depth needed for a tool that modifies system state in a media context.

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%, with both parameters ('inputName' and 'mediaCursorOffset') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, valid ranges for the offset, or examples of usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Offsets the current cursor position of a media input' clearly states the action (offsets) and target (cursor position of a media input), but it's somewhat vague about what 'offsets' means in practical terms. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' (which sets absolute position) or 'obs-get-media-input-status' (which reads status), leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific offset tool versus alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' (sets absolute position) and 'obs-get-media-input-status' (reads status), there's no indication whether this is for relative adjustments, what contexts require offsetting versus setting, or any prerequisites. This lack of differentiation makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.

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