Set Input Audio Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the simple action, such as side effects or return behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, which is ideal for a simple setter tool.

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 low complexity, two fully documented parameters, and meaningful annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks a bit of contextual guidance around when to adjust audio balance versus related audio tools, but the schema and annotations carry most of the required detail.

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 100%, and both parameters are already clearly documented: inputName and inputAudioBalance with a 0.0-1.0 range. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sets') with a specific resource ('audio balance of an input'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool obs-get-input-audio-balance by its setter intent.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obs-get-input-audio-balance or obs-set-input-audio-tracks. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the verb 'Sets,' so the usage context is only implied.

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