update_scenarioSet a draft UT's scenario opening and/or closing guide — the moderator's intro and wrap-up script read at the start and end of each session (not a task; the session-level framing). Pass openingGuide and/or closingGuide. Only works on PREPARING drafts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| utId | Yes | ||
| closingGuide | No | ||
| openingGuide | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context about what the fields represent (moderator's intro/wrap-up) and the PREPARING draft restriction. It does not contradict annotations and adds behavioral detail beyond them.
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 concise, front-loaded with the key action, and uses every sentence meaningfully. It fits in two sentences with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and key constraint (PREPARING drafts). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining openingGuide and closingGuide ('moderator's intro and wrap-up script') and by instructing to pass them optionally. utId is self-evident from the tool context, though not explicitly described.
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 uses a specific verb+resource construct: 'Set a draft UT's scenario opening and/or closing guide'. It clearly differentiates the tool from update_task and update_use_case by clarifying this is session-level framing, not a task.
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?
The description provides clear context for use: it instructs to 'Pass openingGuide and/or closingGuide' and states 'Only works on PREPARING drafts'. It also explicitly says 'not a task', helping distinguish it from sibling tools, though it doesn't name exact alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. Even get_ut, which returns comprehensive data, doesn't replace the specialized get_session, get_transcript, or get_quantitative_report for detailed views. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_task, get_ut, list_workspaces). The main inconsistency is using 'create' for UTs (create_ut) but 'add' for child entities (add_use_case, add_task), and having a separate update_scenario instead of folding it into update_ut, but the convention is still predictable.
With 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain of usability testing requires distinct operations for drafting (use cases, tasks, scenario), reading results (reports, sessions, transcripts), and comparison. Each tool has a clear role, so the count feels reasonable rather than excessive.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: create, read, update, and delete for tasks/use cases, plus comprehensive retrieval of results and notes. Minor gaps include no delete_ut (UTs cannot be removed) and no explicit status change or cloning mechanism, but these are likely intentional app-side actions, so the surface is not severely incomplete.