set_input_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the overlay parameter semantics (merge vs. reset), which is important behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args block. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics, making it minimally usable. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not addressing potential errors (e.g., invalid input_name), return values, or when this tool is preferred over sibling setters. Given no output schema and no annotations, more context would be helpful.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain parameters. It successfully does so: input_name is 'Name of the input', input_settings is 'Settings object to apply', and overlay is clearly defined with True/False behavior. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed about the structure of input_settings.

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 'Set' and the resource 'an input's settings', distinguishing it from siblings like get_input_settings and more specific setters such as set_input_mute or set_input_audio_tracks. It unambiguously identifies the tool's primary function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, whether to prefer this over set_input_mute for single property changes, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely functional, not contextual.

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