obs-press-input-properties-button

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it: it does not say that pressing a button can cause side effects (reloading a browser source, resetting state), whether the action is reversible, or what happens if the property is not a button or does not exist. No error, permission, or return-value behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action stated first and the clarifying example in parentheses; no wasted wording. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the source of the specification gaps rather than purely a virtue.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation-ish tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the input resolution convention (name vs UUID), the side effects of pressing a button, and the expected result or failure mode. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict what it does to the source.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The example 'refreshnocache' adds a small amount of meaning about what a button property name looks like, but the description never clarifies how inputName and inputUuid relate (whether one is required, or which wins if both are supplied).

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Presses a button in the properties of an input') plus a concrete example ('refreshnocache' for browser sources) that makes the action tangible. It is distinguishable from obs-open-input-properties and obs-get-input-properties-list-property-items, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention that the propertyName must first be discovered (e.g. via obs-get-input-properties-list-property-items) or that this differs from simply opening properties. Usage must be inferred entirely from the example.

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