Create scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create' – it doesn't mention whether creating a scene with an existing name fails or overwrites, whether it affects the current scene, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds minimal behavioral context but doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The description is appropriately sized for a simple create operation.

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?

For a simple create tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't address edge cases like duplicate scene names or whether the new scene becomes active. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The missing behavioral context (duplicate handling) is a minor gap for a create operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'scene' but doesn't explain the sceneName parameter beyond what the schema provides (type string, minLength 1). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning about naming conventions, uniqueness, or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single self-explanatory parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new OBS scene.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scene_delete and scene_set_current. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from scene_list or other scene-related tools, though the verb 'create' makes the purpose obvious.

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: use this tool when you need to create a new OBS scene. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (scene_delete, scene_set_current) makes the usage context reasonably clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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