Set Stream Service Settings

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't disclose that settings will be completely replaced, whether certain settings are required, or any impact on current settings. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add meaningful transparency about the operation's effects.

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 with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is extremely minimal—almost terse—which, while efficient, leaves out potentially useful context. It earns a 4 for brevity but not a 5 because it sacrifices helpfulness.

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 set operation that affects stream service settings, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain that it overwrites existing settings, nor does it provide any usage context like when to call this versus obs-get-stream-service-settings. With no output schema and nested objects, the description should offer more to make the tool fully contextual.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions and an example for streamServiceType. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it doesn't go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 current stream service settings' clearly identifies the action (set) and the resource (stream service settings). It distinguishes from the sibling obs-get-stream-service-settings by the verb, but doesn't explicitly mention that distinction. It could be more specific about the scope (e.g., current vs. specific service), but it's clear enough.

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 doesn't mention the complementary get operation or any prerequisites. The context signals show a sibling for getting settings, but the description says nothing to help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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