Set audio monitor mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by explaining what each monitor_type value means (e.g., MONITOR_AND_OUTPUT = hear and broadcast), which is not obvious from the raw schema. It does not mention side effects or error behavior, but for a simple setter this is adequate.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the allowed values. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It defines all enum options and clearly states the tool's purpose. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to describe return values. Minor gaps like permission requirements or reversibility exist, but they are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the monitor_type values (NONE, MONITOR_ONLY, MONITOR_AND_OUTPUT) with plain-language meanings. It also implies the role of source_name as 'a source.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema field names.

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 identifies the action (set) and resource (a source's audio monitor mode), and specifies the three possible values. It is distinct from sibling tools like mute_source or set_audio_track, as it specifically targets audio monitoring states.

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 implies when to use the tool—whenever you need to configure a source's audio monitoring—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No when-not-to scenarios are mentioned.

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