obs-set-input-audio-sync-offset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Sets' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require a refresh, what happens with invalid input names, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 offset (success/failure indicators), whether the change persists, or what side effects might occur. With 2 required parameters and a write operation, more context is needed for safe usage.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (input name and offset value in milliseconds). This meets 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 sync offset 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-volume' that also modify input audio properties, which prevents a perfect score.

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-audio-balance', 'obs-set-input-mute'), there's no indication of when audio sync offset adjustment is appropriate versus other audio modifications.

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