Set Output Settings

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, which are helpful. The description does not contradict annotations. However, it adds no details about side effects, such as whether settings are applied immediately, whether it can disrupt ongoing output, or whether certain settings require specific output types. Since annotations cover some safety aspects, the description adds marginal value but not complete transparency.

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, concise sentence: 'Sets the settings of an output'. It is short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief and lacks valuable context, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool that modifies settings. It lacks context about what outputs are valid, how settings are structured, and any prerequisites or side effects. The annotations provide some safety info, but the description does not compensate for the lack of output schema and the complexity of the nested outputSettings object. It is below the minimum viable standard.

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% for both parameters, but the descriptions are minimal: 'Output name' and 'Output settings'. The description's phrase 'sets the settings of an output' adds little beyond the schema. The nested object outputSettings is not explained in the description, but the schema already provides a definition. Baseline 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 states the tool sets the settings of an output, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like obs-get-output-settings or obs-set-output-settings (there is no obs-set-output-settings in siblings, but there is obs-get-output-settings), and the description is minimal. It is clear but lacks specificity about what 'output' refers to (e.g., streaming, recording, replay buffer).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it should be used instead of other output-related tools like obs-set-record-directory or obs-toggle-output. The description implies usage but does not provide any context for selection.

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