Toggle studio mode

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (enable/disable) and the target mode, but omits potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether OBS must be running with studio mode supported), or the effect on the current preview/program layout beyond the mode toggle. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that earns its place: it names the action and the domain. No filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter boolean toggle, the description covers the core functionality. It includes a helpful parenthetical explaining what studio mode is, which aids context. However, it does not mention how to check the current state (sibling get_studio_mode_status) or what the output schema returns, which could be useful but is not strictly required given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema only defines a required boolean 'enabled' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that the boolean determines whether to enable (true) or disable (false) studio mode, mapping the parameter to the tool's action. It doesn't provide default values or edge-case handling, but for a single boolean this is solid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and explicitly names the resource ('studio mode') with a clarifying parenthetical ('preview/program layout'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_studio_mode_status, which queries status rather than toggling it.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_studio_mode_status or set_preview_scene. Usage must be inferred: use it to switch studio mode on or off. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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