obs-toggle-input-mute

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 toggles mute, implying a mutation that changes state, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the input doesn't exist, if it's idempotent, or what the response looks like. 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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and resource, which is ideal for quick understanding.

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 lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, side effects), usage context compared to siblings, and expected return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'inputName' clearly documented in the schema as 'Name of the input to toggle the mute state of'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples of valid input names or how to discover them, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('toggles') and the resource ('audio mute state of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'obs-set-input-mute', which appears to be a more specific setter tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 like 'obs-set-input-mute' (which sets mute to a specific state) or 'obs-get-input-mute' (which retrieves the current state). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the input to exist or be active, or context about its typical use cases.

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