update_source_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, whether it requires OBS to be running/connected, whether partial updates are supported, or what happens with the sourceType parameter mismatch (e.g., updating an image source with text content). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficient. Could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose, but structurally it's clean.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and a sourceType enum that implies type-specific content semantics. The description is far too thin for the complexity involved. It should at minimum explain how content differs per sourceType and whether OBS connectivity is required.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema shows content (string), sourceName (string), and sourceType (enum: text/browser/image), but the description doesn't explain how content maps across source types (e.g., HTML for browser, URL/file path for image). The description fails to compensate for the 0% 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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Update the content of an OBS source.' It's specific about the action (update content) and resource (OBS source). However, it doesn't differentiate among the source types (text, browser, image), and siblings like show_overlay/hide_overlay also interact with OBS sources, so some differentiation would help.

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 on when to use this tool, what content formats are expected per sourceType, or prerequisites (e.g., does the source need to already exist? Is OBS connected?). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the schema alone.

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