obs_scene_item_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: index 0 is bottom (inverted from OBS UI), the risk of vanishing layers, the return of the full order on every call, and contiguous reindexing after a move. It also includes a detailed gotcha about BG layers, which is beyond the schema.

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 long but every sentence is purposeful. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs critical warnings and usage details efficiently. No filler; each paragraph adds distinct value, making it dense without being bloated.

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 read/write tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: how to invoke, what the return gives (full order), the indexing quirk, the reindexing caveat, and a practical troubleshooting tip. It is complete for an agent to use correctly without external context.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics: clarifies index 0 meaning, explains sceneItemId requires index, and notes that reads are bottom-first. It goes beyond basic schema descriptions by explaining the indexing behavior and the necessity of re-reading after moves.

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 it reads or changes z-order, specifying the exact resource (scene items) and the action (ordering). It distinguishes from sibling tools like obs_scene_item_add or obs_set_source_visible by focusing on layer ordering, and even differentiates read vs. move modes within the same tool.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use read (sceneName only) vs. move (add sceneItemId and index) and warns to re-read after a move. It provides clear operational context, though it doesn't name alternative tools for similar tasks, relying on the obvious distinction from its purpose.

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