osc_scene_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it saves the mixer state but doesn't mention whether this operation is destructive (overwrites existing scenes), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for this simple operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about behavioral implications, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency that's crucial for a state-modifying tool.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between scene number and name, or provide context about what 'saving the mixer state' entails parameter-wise. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 action ('Save') and the resource ('current mixer state as a scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'osc_scene_recall', which would be the natural alternative for scene-related operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_scene_recall' for retrieving scenes or other save/recall operations. The description states what it does but offers no contextual usage information.

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