obs_audio_routing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses several traps: syncOffsetMs silently ignored beyond ~960ms, sources on unconnected tracks may not meter, monitorType can cause audio feedback, and the reply always reflects OBS state after the write with a 'notes' list. This exceeds typical disclosure and prepares the agent for edge cases.

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 lengthy but well-structured: it begins with the core read/write distinction, then lists traps in a numbered list. Each sentence adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed. The front-loading of the purpose and the clear trap enumeration make it efficient for an agent.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly explains the return (post-write state plus notes). It covers all aspects: how to read vs. change, parameter semantics, traps, side effects, and relationships to siblings. For a tool with nested objects and 5 parameters, this is complete and self-contained.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that omission means unchanged, clarifies the syncOffsetMs trap and effective range, and reinforces the meaning of balance values. It does not repeat schema text verbatim but augments it, earning a 4.

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 clearly states it reads and optionally changes where an audio input goes (tracks, monitoring, sync, balance), with a specific verb ('Read - and optionally change') and resource (audio input routing). It also distinguishes from siblings like obs_audio_control (mute/volume) and obs_audio_routing_map (likely a read-only map), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call it with only inputName to read; every other field is a change.' It contrasts with mute/volume tools, explains when to use it vs. alternatives, and warns against 'fixing' sources intentionally excluded from tracks. Also notes that monitorType should be NONE to avoid feedback, giving specific do's and don'ts.

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