Set preview scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the condition that studio mode must be enabled, but it does not disclose potential errors, prerequisites beyond studio mode, side effects, or how the tool behaves if the scene does not exist. For a state-changing tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with 7 words, front-loading the action and resource. It contains no redundant information and effectively conveys the core purpose in minimal space.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so return values are not needed. However, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to know how to prepare for calling it (e.g., checking studio mode status) or what to do if studio mode is disabled. The presence of sibling tools like set_studio_mode and get_studio_mode_status suggests additional context is needed, but the description only hints at the condition.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, scene_name. The description does not explain what the parameter should be, its format, or any constraints (e.g., must exist). While the name 'scene_name' is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's semantics from the name alone.

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 action (set) and the resource (preview scene), and includes the condition 'while studio mode is enabled,' which distinguishes it from tools like switch_scene that presumably set the program scene. However, it does not explicitly explain what 'preview scene' means, leaving some ambiguity for users unfamiliar with OBS studio mode.

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 'while studio mode is enabled' provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not state that switch_scene should be used for the program scene or what to do if studio mode is disabled. The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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