obs-remove-input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not specify consequences (e.g., if removal is permanent, affects associated scenes/filters, or requires specific permissions). It also omits details like error handling or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for brevity and clarity in tool descriptions.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as behavioral effects (e.g., what happens after removal), error conditions, or usage prerequisites. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall tool understanding remains insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 parameter 'inputName' clearly documented as 'Name of the input to remove'. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Removes an existing input' clearly states the action (removes) and resource (input), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like obs-remove-scene or obs-remove-scene-item, which also remove resources but different types. This prevents a perfect score.

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. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., input must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove active inputs), or related tools like obs-get-input-list for verification. This lack of context makes it challenging for an agent to apply it correctly without trial and error.

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