obs-set-scene-item-private-settings

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation. It never states that sceneItemSettings is an arbitrary opaque object, that the overlay flag decides whether existing private settings are merged or destroyed, or what happens on failure — the most consequential behavior (destructive replace) is only discoverable by reading the schema.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy — there is no second sentence carrying the information an agent actually needs.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form settings object and no annotations or output schema, the definition is too thin. It does not explain the overlay behavior, the merge/replace risk, or the shape expectations for the nested object.

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%, including the overlay/merge-vs-replace semantics and the sceneName/sceneUuid alternatives, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the required sceneItemSettings object or the identifier parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("sets the private settings of a scene item"), which is a clear mutation counterpart to obs-get-scene-item-private-settings and distinguishable from obs-set-source-private-settings by the scene-item scope. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, so it is clear but not maximally so.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus obs-set-scene-item-transform, obs-set-scene-item-enabled, or the getter, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the item's numeric ID or a valid scene reference. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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