obsbot_tail2_stream_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the gated resolution-write failure (HTTP 500 while live), the prerequisite tool/action, which writes are ungated, and that writes are readback-verified. It does not cover permissions/auth or persistence/rollback behavior, but it is far above typical 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?

A single dense paragraph front-loads the read/write duality, then lists settings, then adds the critical gate. Every clause adds operational value, though the style is packed rather than cleanly sectioned.

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 four-parameter hardware config tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies critical operational constraints: gating, prerequisite tool call, readback verification, and the bare-read RTSP URL payload. Missing semantics for the camera parameter and write return details keep it from a 5.

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% and there are four parameters. The description explains encoder values, resolution format with an example, and bitrate units, but the 'camera' parameter is never mentioned. This is only partial compensation for the coverage gap, so a baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: read or set the stream encoder configuration shared by the network outputs, and enumerates the settings (encoder, resolution, bitrate). It distinguishes itself from the sibling obsbot_tail2_stream by focusing on encoder config rather than output on/off, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly explains bare read vs parameterized write, and gives the critical gating condition: resolution writes return 500 while an output is live, so obsbot_tail2_stream output:"off" must be called first. It also names which writes are ungated (encoder, bitrate), providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance plus an alternative tool.

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