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

All annotation hints are false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful detail beyond annotations: the server owns revision 1, the tool returns current_version and current_definition_hash, and those exact values must be passed to ticket_validation_finalize. It also clarifies the important semantic distinction that authoring states what must be proven, not what was proven.

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 compact at three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second defines the critical workflow handoff, and the third prevents semantic misuse. Every sentence earns its place and important constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema and all annotation hints are false, the description provides a strong level of context: lifecycle position, successor tool, return contract, and non-evidence warning. The main gaps are definition of what 'owned ticket' means and parameter semantics for required, order_index, and scenario_key, but the core workflow context is otherwise sufficient for an agent to 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 description coverage is only 38%: given_steps, when_steps, and then_steps have descriptions, but the other five parameters do not. The prose does not explain the meaning of name, required, order_index, scenario_key, or the ownership prerequisite on ticket_id. The mention of current_version and current_definition_hash describes outputs, not input parameters, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a precise action ('Author') and object ('one Given/When/Then scenario on an owned ticket'), which clearly differentiates it from related siblings like ticket_scenario_list, ticket_scenario_revise, and ticket_validation_finalize. It also conveys the resource scope (scenario on a ticket) without ambiguity.

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 explicit lifecycle guidance: the scenario is the specification an epic must carry before completion, with ticket_validation_finalize is named as the exact successor step, and then the epic is transitioned afterward. It also provides an explicit exclusionary caveat that authoring a scenario is not evidence, which tells the agent when not to conflate creation with validation, and points to the alternative workflow step explicitly.

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