obs-set-source-filter-index

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. It states a mutation action ('Sets'), implying changes to OBS state, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the change is immediate or reversible, error conditions (e.g., if index is out of bounds), or side effects (e.g., reordering other filters). 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (changing filter order in OBS) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, success indicators, or interactions with other tools (e.g., 'obs-get-source-filter-list'). 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (sourceName, filterName, filterIndex). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints like filterIndex being zero-based. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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') and the target ('index position of a filter on a source'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-set-source-filter-enabled' or 'obs-set-source-filter-name' by focusing on index positioning rather than enabling, naming, or settings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'obs-set-scene-item-transform' which also involves positioning, though in a different context.

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., that the source and filter must exist), exclusions (e.g., invalid indices), or related tools like 'obs-get-source-filter-list' for checking current indices. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook necessary steps.

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