obs_profile_and_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the dual read/write nature (list vs. switch) and clarifies the scope of each resource via parentheticals. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether switching persists across restarts, whether changes affect the active stream immediately, and what the return payload looks like when listing.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action verbs, that conveys both operations and defines both entity types in parentheticals. Zero wasted words.

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 low-complexity tool (2 optional string params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what operations exist and what entities they act on. Slightly more detail on inter-parameter behavior (can both be set in one call?) or expected value format would round it out, but this is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 parentheticals do map naturally to the two parameters (setProfile → encoder + streaming settings; setSceneCollection → scene layouts), and 'List / switch' implies param-presence semantics. However, the mapping is implicit rather than explicit — a comment like 'omit params to list, provide to switch' would strengthen it.

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?

Uses specific verbs ('List / switch') and clearly identified resources ('OBS profiles', 'scene collections') with helpful parenthetical clarifications ('encoder + streaming settings', 'scene layouts'). No sibling overlaps with profiles/collections, so differentiation isn't critical here. Loses a point for not explaining the relationship (or lack thereof) between the two actions.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The intended usage pattern (no args = list, args present = switch) is only implied by the 'List / switch' verbs, and no guidance is given on when to switch profiles vs. scene collections despite the existence of related tools like obs_switch_scene and obs_video_settings.

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