obsbot_tail2_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the effect scope ('changes apply to the encoded/recorded audio stream'), but says nothing about permissions, whether changes persist across sessions, or what a read returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the read/write distinction, no filler or restatement of the name.

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 core contract (bare read vs. set, stream scope, volume range) is present, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the unexplained 'camera' selector and the shape of read-mode results are real gaps an agent would hit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers volume (and the 0-100 range, which the schema's minimum/maximum already encodes) and mute, but the 'camera' parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving a full third of the surface undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb pair (read/set) and resource (Tail 2 audio input), plus the two controllable fields (volume, mute). No audio sibling exists in the tool list, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly explains the dual invocation mode: a bare call reads state, supplying values sets it. That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool, but none competes for this capability.

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