obs_switch_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a key trait beyond the schema: the operation never interrupts the stream and viewers just see a camera change. This is valuable, though it omits details like behavior on invalid scene names or error handling.

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 only two sentences, directly states the action and includes a relevant safety note. There is no extraneous content, though the term 'POV cut' is slightly jargon-heavy and could be simplified for clarity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and good annotations in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the live-action context and the non-disruptive behavior, making it adequate for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. A minor gap is the lack of explicit prerequisite (e.g., that a scene must exist) but that is implied by the schema.

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% and the parameter sceneName is well-described in the schema ('Exact scene name, as returned by obs_list_scenes'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Switch the LIVE scene') with a resource, and clarifies it is the POV cut. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obs_preview_scene (preview switching) and obs_studio_transition by emphasizing live switching and the non-interruptive nature.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use this tool (for live scene changes) and provides the important context that it does not interrupt the stream. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like obs_preview_scene for preview-only switching, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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