streamlabs_set_scene_item_scale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the origin point is optional and affects the scaling, but it does not explain whether the scale is absolute or relative, how the coordinate system works, or any side effects on the scene item's transform. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 with no filler words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness problem.

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 tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, making it moderately complex. The description only covers the core action and one optional aspect (origin), leaving out essential behavioral details like scale coordinate system, interaction with existing transform, and any prerequisites. Sibling tools further highlight the need for clearer differentiation, which is absent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'origin' by indicating it is a pivot point, but it does not explain the semantics of 'scale' (e.g., multipliers) or the relationship between sceneId, sourceId, and sceneItemId. The nested object fields (x, y) are left entirely to the schema, which only provides type information.

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 the scale of a scene item') and specifies the resource (a scene item). It also mentions the optional origin point, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool set_scene_item_transform, which may also affect scale.

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 implies usage when you want to scale a scene item, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like set_scene_item_transform or fit_scene_item_to_screen. There are no exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions mentioned.

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