obs-set-input-volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'sets' volume, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid input name), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the volume units.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output expectations. The schema compensates for parameter documentation, but overall completeness is limited, leaving gaps for safe and effective use.

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 clear documentation for all parameters (inputName, inputVolumeMul, inputVolumeDb), including their types, ranges, and purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between mul and dB units or which parameter to prioritize. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Sets the volume setting of an input' clearly states the action (sets) and target (volume setting of an input), but it's vague about what 'volume setting' entails (e.g., audio level adjustment) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-mute' or 'obs-set-input-audio-balance'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity and sibling distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., input must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot set both volume parameters simultaneously), or compare to related tools like 'obs-get-input-volume' for retrieval. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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