obs-toggle-record

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. 'Toggles' implies a state-changing operation, but the description doesn't specify what the toggle does (e.g., start/stop recording, enable/disable output), what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or what happens to existing recording sessions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Toggles recording on/off' might be clearer). There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 recording operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'record output' means, how the toggle behaves, what the expected outcome is, or how it differs from other recording tools. For a tool that likely controls a critical function like recording, more context is needed to ensure 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. However, it doesn't add any semantic context about implicit parameters or side effects, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 the record output' clearly indicates the action (toggle) and resource (record output), but it's vague about what 'record output' specifically refers to in the OBS context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'obs-toggle-record-pause', 'obs-start-record', or 'obs-stop-record', leaving ambiguity about its exact function compared to similar recording-related tools.

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. With many sibling tools related to recording (e.g., obs-start-record, obs-stop-record, obs-toggle-record-pause), there's no indication of whether this tool starts/stops recording, pauses/resumes it, or toggles some other recording status. The lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.

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