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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that: it does not say what a retire does to existing scenario data, whether revision conflicts are rejected, or how idempotency behaves. 'With expected revision' hints at optimistic concurrency but never states the conflict outcome.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, with no filler — but it is under-specified rather than concise, essentially restating the title. Nothing is wasted because there is almost nothing there.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with 8 parameters, a nested object of 11 required sub-fields, and no output schema. A single title-like sentence is far short of what an agent needs to call it correctly, particularly around revision conflicts, retired semantics, and the meaning of the nested field set.

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 only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It names only expectedRevision and reason, leaving 'retired', 'company', 'kind', and the entire nested 11-field 'fields' object (cohort, difficulty, sourceKind, permittedEffects, prohibitedBehavior, closureEvidence, etc.) unexplained semantically.

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 names a specific verb set (create, revise, retire) and the resource (a quality scenario), plus two shaping inputs (expected revision and reason). An agent can distinguish it from the read-only siblings summer_quality_scenarios_get and summer_quality_scenarios_list by verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It implies the tool is used for lifecycle changes but gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing revision from the get tool), and no explanation of when to create versus revise versus retire. The agent is left to infer everything about selecting this tool.

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