obs-set-source-filter-enabled

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. While 'Sets' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies OBS state, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the filter is enabled/disabled, whether there's confirmation feedback, or potential error scenarios. For a tool that changes OBS configuration state, more behavioral context is needed despite the concise description.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between sourceName and filterName, or what filterEnabled=true/false means operationally). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 target ('enable state of a source filter'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-create-source-filter' or 'obs-remove-source-filter' by focusing on enabling/disabling rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a 'source filter' is in the OBS context, which could help differentiate further from similar 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 source and filter), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-get-source-filter' for checking current state. Without this context, an agent might struggle to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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