obs-set-studio-mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs an enable/disable action, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects (e.g., how it affects live streams or recordings), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation operation in OBS), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like effects on OBS state, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 one parameter 'studioModeEnabled' clearly documented as a boolean for enabling/disabling. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of enabling/disabling or provide examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Enables or disables studio mode' clearly states the action (enables/disables) and target (studio mode), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'studio mode' refers to in the OBS context (e.g., a preview/program switching feature for live production) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-studio-mode' or 'obs-trigger-studio-transition', which are related but distinct operations.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., OBS must be running, studio mode must be available), exclusions (e.g., cannot use during certain states), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'obs-get-studio-mode' (for checking status) or 'obs-trigger-studio-transition' (for executing transitions within studio mode). The description implies usage only through the action verb.

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