obs-create-profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'creates' and 'switching', implying mutation and side effects, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the profile name already exists, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Creates a new profile') and adds a secondary effect ('switching to it in the process'). There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain error conditions, success responses, or behavioral nuances like whether the switch is immediate or requires a restart. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'profileName' documented as 'Name for the new profile'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format constraints, uniqueness requirements, or character limits). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new profile'), and specifies an additional effect ('switching to it in the process'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-set-current-profile' (which switches without creating) and 'obs-remove-profile' (which deletes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all creation tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-input', keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a profile name must be unique), when not to use it (e.g., if a profile already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'obs-set-current-profile' for switching without creation. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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