obs-remove-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 action ('Remove') but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated scene items, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and impact.

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 zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and resource, adhering perfectly to best practices for conciseness without sacrificing clarity in this minimal form.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use. This is inadequate for a mutation tool in a system like OBS.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a scene from OBS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-remove-input' or 'obs-remove-scene-item' by specifying 'scene' as the target. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from broader deletion tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when to remove a scene versus modifying it or handling dependencies. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., if the scene must exist or be unused) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.

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