Set Input Audio Tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation implied by 'Set' – it does not explain that this fully replaces the track enable state, requires all six tracks, or has side effects. Since the description adds nothing beyond what annotations provide, it falls short.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one nested object with six required booleans), the schema provides thorough parameter details and the annotations cover safety traits. The description offers a minimal but adequate summary, yet it could mention that it fully configures the track state or advise pairing with the getter. It is functional but not rich.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it relies on the thorough schema descriptions for inputName, inputUuid, and inputAudioTracks. No additional semantic detail is provided, so a baseline score 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 states the action (Set) and the resource (enabled audio tracks for an input). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like obs-get-input-audio-tracks (retrieval) and obs-set-input-audio-monitor-type (a different audio property). No ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the complement to obs-get-input-audio-tracks, nor does it note any prerequisites or context such as needing to specify all six tracks. The usage context is entirely implied from the name and schema.

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