streamlabs_add_source_to_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the high-level action and does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the source is removed from its current scene), error conditions (e.g., invalid scene/source id), or the default placement of the new scene item. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information and earns its place by conveying the essential purpose and a key usage hint. Excellent conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is complete enough only for a trivial read tool. For a mutation tool, it fails to cover important aspects such as how to obtain sceneId, error behavior, and any side effects. The existence of many sibling tools further increases the need for clearer context, which this description does not provide.

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 input schema has two bare string parameters with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that sourceId comes from streamlabs_list_sources and represents an existing source, but it does not explicitly map sceneId to a source list (e.g., streamlabs_list_scenes) or explain how the ids are structured. The description adds partial meaning but leaves gaps.

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 what the tool does: adds an existing source to a scene as a new scene item. It specifies the verb ('Add'), the resource ('existing source'), the target ('scene'), and the result ('new scene item'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like create_and_add_source by explicitly noting the source is existing and identified by id.

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 gives clear usage context: 'by id, from streamlabs_list_sources' tells the agent where to obtain the sourceId. It implies using an existing source rather than creating a new one, which helps with tool selection among siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention the sceneId source (e.g., streamlabs_list_scenes) or provide exclusions such as 'do not use if you need a new source'.

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