Set Input Settings

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description's 'sets' is consistent but adds nothing. It fails to mention that this operation may replace or merge settings (overlay parameter), or that it's idempotent (already indicated by annotations). No additional behavioral context is provided beyond what annotations and schema already reveal.

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 one short sentence with no fluff, making it extremely concise. However, it might be under-specified for a tool with a nested object and overlay semantics, but from a purely structural standpoint, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with a nested inputSettings object and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It doesn't clarify that inputSettings is an arbitrary property map, how overlay controls merge vs. reset, or what happens on failure. The schema describes overlay, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema already explains the overlay flag and the inputName/inputSettings meaning. The description's lack of param details is acceptable given schema coverage.

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 'Sets the settings of an input' uses a clear verb-resource pair and makes the core function immediately obvious. It does not differentiate from sibling set-* tools like obs-set-input-audio-tracks or obs-set-input-volume, but the generic 'input settings' is distinct enough for basic identification.

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 instead of the many specialized setter tools for input audio, mute, volume, etc., nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases. The only context is what can be inferred from the name.

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