streamlabs_update_source_settings

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose mutation effects; it only says 'Update' without specifying whether settings are replaced wholesale, whether validation occurs, or any permissions/error behavior, leaving the agent to infer the consequences.

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 entire description is one sentence with examples, front-loading the action and using no filler; every word contributes.

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 open-ended 'settings' object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on discovering valid settings keys per source type, whether an update merges or replaces, and what errors might occur, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description adds value by showing example keys for 'settings' and mapping them to source types, but it never explains 'sourceId' (though the name implies it) and does not cover the full semantics of arbitrary settings objects, leaving much to the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'settings/properties for a source', and provides concrete examples (browser_source URL, text_gdiplus text) that clarify scope and differentiate it from read-only siblings like streamlabs_get_source_settings.

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 examples ('{ url: ... } for a browser_source, or { text: ... } for text_gdiplus') imply relevant contexts, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention excluded cases, such as using get_source_settings to read current values first.

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