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

Annotations declare the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: "Scenarios are appended - existing ones are preserved," which reassures the agent that a mutation will not overwrite the existing golden suite. It does not mention any limit on scenario count, validation rules, or return shape.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then usage, then the append/preserve guarantee, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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 two-required-param mutation tool with a rich nested schema and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and the append semantics. It leaves out return behavior and any limits on scenario count or validation, which are minor but real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including nested scenario fields and the superadmin-only customerId, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only implicitly references agentId via "an agent's existing golden suite" and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (add) plus resource (custom regression test scenarios) and target (an agent's existing golden suite), which separates it from siblings like get_regression_suite and regression_test without needing to name them. An agent can identify the operation from the first clause alone.

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?

"Use this to strengthen the regression suite with scenarios targeting specific behaviors (e.g., human escalation, multi-language, support routing)" gives a clear context and concrete examples of intended use. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to an alternative (e.g., dataset or production-test tools), so no explicit exclusions.

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