obs-set-input-audio-monitor-type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are immediate or require a restart, what happens if the input doesn't exist, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple setter tool and is perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the monitor type, what the valid monitor types mean in practice, or any side effects. Given the complexity of audio monitoring in OBS and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and implications.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 target resource ('audio monitor type of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-audio-balance' or 'obs-set-input-audio-sync-offset' beyond the specific property being set.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what effects it might have on the OBS system. It's a bare statement of function with no contextual usage information.

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