obs-set-input-mute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are immediate or reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid input names), or side effects. 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 too minimal. It lacks context about what 'Sets' entails operationally, how it interacts with other OBS tools, or what happens on success/failure. Given the complexity of audio state management and sibling tools, more completeness is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters (inputName and inputMuted). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid input names or muting behavior details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 target ('audio mute state of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-toggle-input-mute' or 'obs-get-input-mute', which handle similar functionality differently.

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 like 'obs-toggle-input-mute' (which toggles rather than sets) or 'obs-get-input-mute' (which retrieves the state). The description offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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