Set Source Filter Settings

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

Annotations carry the behavioral disclosure: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, meaning the agent knows this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, retry-safe mutation. The description neither contradicts these annotations nor meaningfully extends them. It adds minimal value beyond what the structured hints already convey, so a neutral score is warranted with no contradiction flagged.

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?

Eight words with zero waste, achieving maximum efficiency. However, the brevity reads more like a label than a description — every sentence earns its place, but the single sentence is doing so little work that it might as well not exist. It is appropriately sized but borderline under-specified.

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 state-mutating tool with a nested filterSettings object, overlay semantics, and an optional canvasUuid, the total absence of context is a real gap. There is no mention of merge behavior beyond the schema's overlay parameter, no discussion of return values, and no cross-reference to related filter operations. The schema and annotations compensate substantially, but the description itself is nearly content-free for a tool with this complexity.

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 of 3 applies per the rubric. All five parameters (sourceName, filterName, filterSettings, overlay, canvasUuid) have accurate descriptions in the schema, with "overlay" usefully clarifying merge-vs-reset behavior. The description itself contributes nothing to parameter understanding, but the schema fully compensates.

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?

"Sets the settings of a source filter" uses a specific verb and resource and is technically accurate, conveying that the tool modifies filter configuration. However, it is nearly a verbatim restatement of the title and tool name, adding negligible disambiguation beyond the identifier itself. The word "settings" does subtly differentiate it from filter siblings like obs-set-source-filter-enabled or obs-set-source-filter-name, but this is implicit at best.

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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool references. With roughly a dozen filter-related siblings in the tool list (create, remove, get, set-name, set-enabled), the agent receives zero assistance in choosing among them. There is no explicit or even implied usage context distinguishing this mutator from its counterpart operations.

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