obs-create-input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, error conditions, or what happens if the input already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (like error handling or side effects), usage context relative to siblings, or return values. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone, which is insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'inputKind' values are valid or how 'inputSettings' should be structured). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('creates a new input') and the resource ('adding it as a scene item to the specified scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene-item' or 'obs-create-source-filter', which might create ambiguity about when to use 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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'obs-create-scene-item', 'obs-create-source-filter'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions from related creation tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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