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

Without relying on annotations (which only carry basic boolean flags), the description discloses key behavioral traits: append-only revisions, preservation of past validation evidence with exact version/hash, CAS conflict semantics, and the need for a fresh passing run. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and is essential for the agent to avoid surprising side effects.

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: two sentences that pack in the purpose, concurrency model, append-only semantics, and follow-up requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity, the description gives the agent everything it needs to understand the behavioral contract: how revisions interact with past evidence, how concurrent edits are handled, and what action is required afterward. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value details is not a gap. The only minor ambiguity is the meaning of 'epic', but that is likely a domain term covered by broader context.

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 43%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify expected_version (the CAS token) and indirectly explains scenario_id as the target. However, it does not explain the roles of ticket_id, name, or the step arrays beyond what the schema already states. The step arrays have schema descriptions, so that part is covered, but ticket_id remains unexplained. Overall, the description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Replace an owned scenario's content', giving a specific verb, resource, and ownership condition. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticket_scenario_create and ticket_scenario_list, and the rest of the description leaves no doubt it's about modifying an existing scenario.

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 implies the main use case (modifying an existing owned scenario) and provides explicit guidance on the compare-and-swap expected_version mechanism, including that a stale version conflicts rather than overwrites. It also warns that a fresh validation run is needed after revision. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, which would merit a 5.

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