Set current scene

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the switch takes effect immediately or whether the scene must exist. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—the description does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action and resource, and immediately mentions both parameter modes. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing—every word earns its place. It is efficiently front-loaded for quick agent parsing.

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 an output schema (though not shown here) and fully documented parameters, but the description omits important usage nuances. It does not clarify what happens if both sceneId and sceneName are provided (e.g., precedence), whether the scene must already exist, or whether any parameter is required (schema shows both optional). For a mutation tool that changes the live program state, an agent would benefit from at least a note that the scene should be valid. The description is minimal and leaves these details ambiguous.

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 100%—both sceneId and sceneName have descriptive text in the schema ('OBS scene UUID' and 'OBS scene name'). The description only reiterates that the target can be specified by UUID or name, adding no new meaning about parameter priority, mutual exclusivity, or whether at least one is required. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is correct; the description offers marginal 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 states a specific verb ('Switch') and a clear resource ('current program scene'), and it explicitly mentions the two ways to specify the target ('by UUID or name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scene_list (which lists scenes) or scene_create (which creates scenes), so an agent can tell what it does without inspecting the schema.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to change the active scene—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say, for example, 'Use scene_list first to find available scenes' or 'Do not use this to create or delete scenes.' The usage context is inferable from the tool name and sibling list, but there is no explicit guidance.

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