obs-set-current-scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets the active scene, implying a mutation, but does not cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the change is immediate or reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid scene name), or impact on ongoing streams/recordings. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for clarity and quick understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of OBS operations and the absence of structured data to compensate, the description does not provide enough information for effective tool use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'sceneName' clearly documented as 'The name of the scene to set as current'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 target ('current active scene in OBS'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-preview-scene' or 'obs-set-current-scene-collection', which involve similar setting operations but for different resources, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'obs-set-preview-scene' for preview mode or 'obs-set-current-scene-collection' for collections. It also omits prerequisites like needing the scene to exist or being in a specific OBS state, leaving usage context unclear.

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