obs-start-output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what 'starting an output' entails—whether it's a mutating operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., interrupting other outputs), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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?

While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and fails to earn its place by providing actionable information, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 OBS operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'output' is, what starting it does, potential outcomes, or how it interacts with the system, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively in context.

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 the single parameter 'outputName' documented as 'Output name' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about this parameter (e.g., what constitutes a valid output name, where to find available outputs). Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Starts an output' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'obs-start-output' without adding meaningful context. It lacks specificity about what an 'output' refers to in the OBS context (e.g., streaming, recording, virtual camera) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-start-stream' or 'obs-start-record'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an output must be configured first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'obs-stop-output' or 'obs-toggle-output', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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