Connect OBS Recorder

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

The description adds security-relevant context by stating the OBS password is passed only to the bridge payload and redacted from reports, which is not in the annotations. It also discloses what the scaffold includes, complementing the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and a clear object, with no filler. Every phrase adds value, covering the scaffold contents and the password redaction behavior.

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 9-parameter scaffold tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose, security handling, and publishing options. It does not detail return values or the exact scaffold structure, but the schema and openWorldHint annotation fill some gaps, making this adequate if not exhaustive.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the description carries minimal additional parameter meaning. It mentions 'optional NDI or Syphon/Spout TOP publishing,' which corresponds to output_mode and source_top_path, but the schema already covers these fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('TouchDesigner-side OBS control scaffold'), listing concrete components (obs-websocket v5 request templates, status/setup DATs, NDI/Syphon/Spout publishing). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like obs_stream_control or connect_vmix_production.

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—setting up OBS control in TouchDesigner—but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tool is named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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