Set output settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Medium risk', which is vague and does not explain what 'modify' entails (e.g., dynamic reconfiguration, potential disruption of ongoing outputs, or the need for confirmation). The confirm parameter suggests safety behavior but is not mentioned, making the tool's side effects opaque.

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 sentence front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a risk qualifier. It is efficient and not overly verbose, though it could benefit from additional necessary details. The structure is clear and easy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, confirmation flag, no schema descriptions, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what an 'output' is in OBS context, when modifications apply, or why confirmation might be needed. While an output schema exists, it does not cover operational context.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It gives examples of what might be inside 'output_settings' (bitrate, encoder), but does not clarify the expected values for 'output_name' or the role of 'confirm'. Nested object structure and semantics are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 a specific verb 'Modify' and clearly identifies the resource ('settings of an OBS output'). It provides examples ('bitrate, encoder, etc.') and implicitly differentiates from sibling 'get_output_settings' by being a setter rather than getter. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_stream_settings' or 'set_video_settings'. It merely restates the tool's function without providing context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios. The 'Medium risk' note hints at caution but does not direct usage.

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