obs-set-input-name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Sets'), implying it modifies state, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if the rename affects other references), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Sets the name of an input (rename)'), using only one brief phrase. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a clarifying parenthetical, with no wasted words or 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. Given the complexity of modifying system state in OBS, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('Current input name', 'New name for the input'). The description adds minimal value by implying the rename action but doesn't elaborate on parameter constraints or usage beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Sets the name of an input') and specifies it's a rename operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'obs-create-input' (creation) and 'obs-remove-input' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'obs-set-input-*' tools that modify different input properties.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the input must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-get-input-list' for verification. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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