Set Audio Input Properties

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool silently switches between two different mixer backends depending on hardware model, and faderGain is ignored on classic mixers. It does not say whether this requires an active connection or what happens on unsupported models, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose plus the hardware-model caveat, then a compact parameter list. The Args block restates ranges already in the schema, which is mild redundancy, but each entry carries added semantics so nothing is pure waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the things an agent actually needs: required input, the three mixOption states with their on-air meaning, the gain/fader split, and the hardware-dependent backend. Remaining unknowns (connection prerequisite, error behavior) are minor for a setter of this scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: 'afv' is expanded into its on-air consequence ('audio is live only when this input is on program'), and gain is framed as the pre-fader knob versus faderGain as the main channel fader — a distinction the schema's enum and range alone do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure an audio input on the ATEM') and immediately clarifies it operates per-input rather than on the master bus, which is the key axis of confusion against atem_set_audio_master_output. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 model-dependent routing note (Fairlight on Mini Extreme/Constellation vs classic mixer on Mini/Mini Pro) is useful operational context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no pointer to atem_get_audio_state for reading current values before writing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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