obs-set-scene-item-transform

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 implies a mutation ('Set'), but does not specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified transform properties (e.g., are they reset or preserved), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

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 complexity of an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool understanding remains incomplete for safe and effective 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 11 parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'sceneName', 'positionX', 'rotation'). The description adds minimal value by listing the transform aspects (position, rotation, scale, crop) but does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the target ('position, rotation, scale, or crop of a scene item'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-item-transform' (which retrieves the transform) or 'obs-set-scene-item-enabled' (which toggles visibility), leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its specific role among similar mutation tools.

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. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene item), compare it to other transform-related tools like 'obs-get-scene-item-transform', or indicate scenarios where it is appropriate (e.g., adjusting layout vs. enabling/disabling). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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