Rename a preset slot (1-3) on OBSBOT Tail 2 webcam by providing a new name up to 40 characters; handles base64 encoding transparently.
Rename a Tail 2 preset slot (1–3). Names travel base64 on the wire; the tool encodes/decodes transparently (up to 40 chars).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slot | Yes | ||
| camera | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious wire behavior (names travel base64, encoded/decoded transparently), which an agent could not infer elsewhere. However, for a mutation it omits whether an existing name is overwritten, what happens on an empty slot, and whether errors are returned.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the encoding caveat second. Slightly dense on wire-format detail but nothing is wasted.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented parameter set leaves notable gaps: the undocumented camera selector and the lack of any error/overwrite behavior. The base64 note is a bright spot but does not fill the overall picture.
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 0%. The description restates the slot range (1–3) and the 40-char limit already encoded in the schema, and only incidentally clarifies the name parameter's base64 wire format. The third parameter (camera) is never mentioned in either the schema or the description.
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?
States a specific verb (rename), resource (Tail 2 preset), and scope (slot 1–3). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling preset_save, preset_recall, preset_delete, and preset_list tools without needing to open their schemas.
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 verb 'rename' combined with the slot range implies when to use it within the preset family, but the description names no alternatives and states no prerequisites (e.g., whether the slot must already be saved). Usage is implied rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.