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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description adds genuine behavioral context: it discloses a refusal policy for non-prompt-fixable failures and the two-part side effect (scenario creation + optional optimization). It does not mention permissions or whether the added scenario is reversible, but the key operational limits are surfaced.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the pipeline guidance, then the refusal rule. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does convey the outcome (scenario added; optimization optionally launched) and refusal conditions, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing what is returned (e.g., scenario or optimization identifiers) after success.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including autoLaunch's default and the superadmin-only customerId. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+effect: turning a failed run into a regression scenario on its owning agent, with an optional optimization launch. This is clearly distinguishable from add_regression_scenarios (generic bulk add) and get_worst_run (diagnosis only).

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?

Explicitly names the preceding sibling ('Pipe get_worst_run → fix_worst_run') and the condition that selects it, plus explicit refusal criteria (tool_config, model_limitation failures are not prompt-fixable). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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