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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: append-only revisions, validation runs keep naming the exact version and hash, stale expected_version conflicts rather than overwriting, and the need for a fresh passing run. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core operation, the second explains the append-only revision behavior and its consequence, the third clarifies the concurrency conflict behavior. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: ownership, concurrency, and post-revision validation requirements. It doesn't mention what the response contains, but with no output schema and the core semantics well covered, this is a minor gap. The sibling context (ticket_scenario_create/list) makes the tool's role clear.

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 43%, so the schema documents some parameters (steps arrays, expected_version minimum) but not ticket_id, scenario_id, or name. The description explains expected_version's role in compare-and-swap semantics, which is the most important parameter meaning. It doesn't detail every parameter, but the key semantic (expected_version as concurrency token) is 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace an owned scenario's content, compare-and-swapping on expected_version.' This clearly distinguishes it from ticket_scenario_create and ticket_scenario_list, and the compare-and-swap detail makes the operation's nature unmistakable.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (revising an owned scenario) and what happens with a stale expected_version: it conflicts rather than overwriting a concurrent edit. It also states the consequence that the epic needs a fresh passing run against the new version, which is essential guidance for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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