obs-toggle-output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a 'toggle,' implying a mutation that changes state, but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, what the default state is, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., if toggling affects streaming or recording). It lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or response format, making it insufficient for safe use.

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 with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'toggles' entails (e.g., switches between on/off), what happens after toggling, or potential errors. Given the complexity of state changes in OBS and lack of structured data, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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 'outputName' documented as 'Output name' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as valid names or examples. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given 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 'Toggles the status of an output' clearly states the action (toggle) and resource (output), but it's vague about what 'status' means (e.g., on/off, enabled/disabled) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like obs-start-output or obs-stop-output, which also affect output states. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obs-start-output or obs-stop-output, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an output to exist. The description implies usage for toggling but offers no context for decision-making, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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