obs-set-current-transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a 'Set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific OBS states (e.g., studio mode), if changes are immediate or reversible, or any error conditions (e.g., invalid transition name). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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.

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 mutation nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success indicators, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in OBS workflows. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'transitionName' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid transition names or where to obtain them. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, 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 ('Set') and target resource ('current transition in OBS'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-transition-duration' or 'obs-set-transition-settings', which also modify transitions but in different ways, so it misses full 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing transition name from 'obs-get-transition-list' or clarify that this sets the active transition for future scene changes, unlike 'obs-trigger-transition' which immediately applies it.

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