Prepare stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key mutation (switch scene) and explicitly excludes going live, which is helpful. But it does not state whether verification steps modify anything, whether OBS must be running, or whether this is idempotent. It also doesn't describe side effects on existing source states.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a clear negative scope. Every phrase earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's scope and steps. It could mention prerequisites like OBS running, but overall it is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so the description adds context about the workflow rather than parameter syntax. Given the empty schema, the description adequately fills the gap by explaining what the tool does.

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?

States a specific action: 'Prepare OBS for streaming' and enumerates the steps: switch to stream scene, verify sources/audio, check output config, report readiness. Explicitly distinguishes from start_stream by noting 'Does NOT go live.'

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 phrase 'prepare OBS for streaming' and the explicit 'Does NOT go live' imply this is a pre-flight check before going live. However, it does not name alternative tools like start_stream or get_stream_health, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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