Set Studio Mode

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds minimal context beyond 'enables/disables,' but it does not contradict annotations. It doesn't explain side effects (e.g., what happens to preview/scene) but that's beyond the tool's scope. With annotations present, the added value is adequate.

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, clutter-free sentence that directly captures the purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, with zero wasted words.

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 setter with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It conveys the action and its parameter without ambiguity. There are no missing prerequisites or consequences to disclose.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'studioModeEnabled' fully documented as a boolean for toggling. The tool description essentially repeats the schema's parameter description, adding no new meaning. Baseline 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 the tool's function: it enables or disables studio mode. The verb 'enables or disables' is specific, and the resource 'studio mode' is unambiguous. It distinctly contrasts with sibling obs-get-studio-mode (which retrieves state), so it differentiates well.

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 gives clear intent (set studio mode on/off). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the simplicity and the existence of a getter sibling, the usage context is implicitly obvious. No exclusions are needed.

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