obs-set-input-audio-balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Sets' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require a refresh, what happens to existing audio settings, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded, immediately conveying the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the balance (e.g., confirmation response, error handling), doesn't mention prerequisites like needing the input to exist, and provides no context about how this interacts with other audio settings. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (inputName and inputAudioBalance with range 0.0-1.0). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Sets') and the resource ('audio balance of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-volume' or 'obs-set-input-mute', which are similar configuration tools for OBS inputs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that modify input properties (e.g., 'obs-set-input-volume', 'obs-set-input-mute'), there's no indication of when audio balance adjustment is appropriate versus other audio controls.

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