obs-set-output-settings

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. 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the output doesn't exist, whether settings are validated, or if changes are immediate/permanent. It also doesn't mention error conditions or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just four words, with no wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks the substance needed for a mutation tool. While structurally minimal, it doesn't achieve the ideal balance of conciseness and completeness.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'output settings' encompass, how to determine valid settings, what the tool returns, or error handling. With 2 parameters (including a nested object) and behavioral complexity from being a setter, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and outcomes.

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 ('outputName' and 'outputSettings') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 settings of an output' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obs-set-output-settings' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'sets' and resource 'output', but fails to distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'obs-set-input-settings' or 'obs-set-stream-service-settings' beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks differentiation from related configuration tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing output), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-settings' (for retrieval) or 'obs-start-output'/'obs-stop-output' (for control). Without any usage context, an agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema alone.

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