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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses exactly what gets destroyed: 'the populations given become the whole scenario... they are dropped and the ones you send are new populations.' This is a non-obvious, critical behavioral trait that prevents an agent from accidentally wiping out existing populations. References to shared save rules add further context, with no contradiction to annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core action and then explaining the critical population-replacement semantics. It avoids restating schema details and uses the reference to create_scenario to avoid duplicating shared rules. No 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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it replaces, how to preserve populations, and where to find the ids. It relies on create_scenario for save rules and summary rather than specifying them, and does not mention projectId/scenarioId semantics, though those are inferable. This is highly functional but not fully self-contained.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates for the most complex parameter by explaining that populations are a full replacement and that existing identities must be sent back via the id from get_scenario. projectId and scenarioId have no schema descriptions, but their roles are self-evident from names; the description does not add detail for them, but the key behavioral parameter is well covered.

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 the specific action 'Replace an existing scenario's name and Populations', identifying the resource (scenario) and what changes (name, populations). It clearly distinguishes from sibling create/delete/get operations by emphasizing replacement of an existing entity, and the whole-population caveat adds precision.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to change an existing scenario's name or replace its populations. It references get_scenario for ids and create_scenario for save rules, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with create_scenario/delete_scenario as alternatives.

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