Set audio mixer input

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: it states a mutating behavior, matching readOnlyHint=false, and does not contradict destructiveHint=false. It adds a useful list of the mutable properties, but it does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether an input identifier is required or whether omitted properties are left unchanged.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes either the action, the target resource, or the scope of properties, making it economically structured for an agent to parse.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with zero required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that an input must be identified via inputId or inputName, nor that at least one property should be supplied, and it leaves the volumeDb/volumeMul distinction unexplained. The output schema partially offsets return-value explanation, but the invocation guidance is still insufficient.

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 only 44%, so the description carries significant parameter-semantics burden. It names property categories like 'volume' and 'mute', but it fails to clarify ambiguous mappings such as volumeDb vs volumeMul, and it does not explain units or the relationship between the two volume parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Change'), a specific resource ('OBS mixer properties'), and enumerates the exact properties affected: volume, mute, stereo balance, sync offset, monitoring mode, and output track routing. This clearly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like audio_mixer_get and audio_mixer_list.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as input_audio_set or audio_mixer_mute_toggle. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routes, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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