obs-set-scene-transition-override

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about effect timing, whether the scene must exist or be inactive, whether changes are reversible, or that null values remove the override (only the schema hints at this). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so length is fine. However, the awkward 'transition overridden' phrasing makes the one sentence ambiguous rather than front-loading a clear action.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond parameter names: what the override affects, when it takes effect, and how it relates to the getter and transition siblings. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral context is missing.

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 each of the four parameters documented including the null-to-remove semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, but it does not mislead either.

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 sentence essentially restates the tool name: 'Sets the scene transition overridden for a scene' adds no resource scope or verb precision beyond 'obs-set-scene-transition-override'. The phrase 'transition overridden' is grammatically broken and leaves the agent unsure whether it sets an override, clears one, or sets an already-overridden transition.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the paired obs-get-scene-transition-override sibling, and no note about how this differs from obs-set-current-transition or obs-trigger-studio-transition. The agent must infer usage 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.