set_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it switches the scene but doesn't state what happens to current content, whether it requires a live connection (get_obs_health, reconnect_obs siblings suggest dependency), or whether the switch is immediate or queued. This is a state-changing tool with no behavioral detail.

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 single sentence is concise and has zero waste, but it's under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. One short declarative sentence is appropriate in length but doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful guidance beyond restating the tool's obvious function.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description should provide substantially more context. It doesn't explain what 'program' scene means, how it relates to the OBS ecosystem (get_obs_health, reconnect_obs), or what happens on failure. The tool is incomplete for an agent to use safely and correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the sceneName parameter. It does not. It doesn't specify the format of sceneName (exact name string?), whether it needs to match an existing scene from get_scene_list, or any case-sensitivity or naming conventions. The description adds nothing beyond what the bare schema property name implies.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Switch the current program scene'), but it's thin and doesn't distinguish from siblings like switch_segment or start_show/show_overlay. 'Scene' is somewhat clear given the get_scene_list sibling, but the description alone gives minimal differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There's no direction about when set_scene should be preferred over switch_segment or trigger_effect, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is entirely absent.

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