obs-open-input-properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description lacks behavioral details. It doesn't specify if this action is read-only or mutating (e.g., might allow editing properties), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens upon opening (e.g., a UI dialog appears). The description only states the basic action without disclosing important traits like side effects or user interaction requirements.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the core action ('Opens') and target, which is efficient for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'opening a properties dialog' entails (e.g., is it a UI action, does it return data?), behavioral implications, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that likely involves user interaction, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('inputName' and 'inputUuid'). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter relationships (e.g., use one or both) or constraints. Since the schema fully covers the parameters, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Opens') and target ('properties dialog of an input'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-open-input-filters' or 'obs-open-input-interact' that also open dialogs for inputs, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the input must exist or be active), nor does it compare to similar tools like 'obs-get-input-settings' that might retrieve properties without opening a dialog, leaving usage context unclear.

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