obs_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions listing (a read operation) and setting (a write operation) but does not describe side effects, required permissions, error handling, or return values. For a state-changing action, this is insufficient transparency, leaving the agent to guess consequences.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose with no filler. Every word serves a function, and it efficiently communicates the dual action of listing or setting without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a listing returns, whether setting requires both parameters or just one, or how errors are handled, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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?

The schema describes one parameter (transitionName) with an example, but the tool description itself adds no meaning to either parameter. Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description fails to compensate for the undocumented durationMs. The agent gains no extra insight beyond the schema's minimal details.

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 the tool lists transitions or sets the active one and its duration, with the clarifying phrase 'how POV cuts look' adding context. It distinguishes its function from generic OBS tools but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'obs_studio_transition', so it falls short of a 5.

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: whenever you need to enumerate available transitions or set the global active transition and its duration. It provides clear context for the use case but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as avoiding this tool for studio mode transitions.

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