Set Scene Item Index

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

The description adds negligible behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description merely restates the mutation intent without disclosing side effects (e.g., reordering implications, impact on other scene items, or error conditions). With annotations covering the safety profile, the low added value warrants a 2.

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, short sentence that directly conveys the core function with zero superfluous words. It's front-loaded and perfectly concise for a straightforward setter tool.

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 five parameters, including multiple optional ways to identify the scene (sceneName, sceneUuid, canvasUuid), yet the description doesn't explain how to choose among them or whether one is preferred. It also doesn't clarify what 'index' means in terms of ordering (likely z-order) or the effect of setting an out-of-range index. Given the ambiguity in scene identification and index semantics, the description is incomplete for a reliable invocation.

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?

All five parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it simply names the action. The 'sceneItemIndex' parameter is defined as 'New scene item index' in the schema, and the description doesn't clarify index semantics (e.g., if it's 0-based or relational). Since there's no additional value, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: setting the index position of a scene item. It distinguishes from sibling tools like obs-get-scene-item-index (which retrieves the index) and obs-set-scene-item-enabled (which toggles enabled state) by specifying the verb 'set' and the resource 'index position'. However, it doesn't explain what 'index' means (e.g., z-order or render order), so it's not fully explicit.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to prefer this over obs-set-scene-item-transform or other scene item modifiers, or any exclusions. The usage context is implied but never stated.

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