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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context, namely the paid-plan requirement, partial-update semantics, and an approval gate that explains why confirmed exists. It does not spell out what is lost or whether the change is reversible, so it stops short of the top score despite strong additions.

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 tight sentences; the mutation scope comes first, then the plan prerequisite, then the approval workflow. Nothing is redundant and the ordering matches the order an agent needs the information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything that matters: prerequisites, the precondition call, the partial-update contract, and the confirmation requirement. Safety context comes from annotations, so no critical gap remains.

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?

With schema description coverage at 14%, the description carries most of the load: it maps title, whenToUse, scenario (guide text), and isEnabled to their meanings and reinforces the confirmed gate. agentId is never explained and the null-means-unchanged convention is only implied by 'send only the fields that change', so a small gap remains.

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 a specific verb (change) and resource (one Call Scenario) plus the exact mutable fields: title, when-to-use selector, guide text, enabled state, keyed by scenarioId. This clearly separates it from call_scenarios_create, delete, and reorder, which do different things to the same object.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: call listCallScenarios first, show the exact change, wait for explicit approval, then set confirmed=true. It also states the plan prerequisite (PRO or higher, Growth on older web plans) and the partial-update rule, so the agent knows both when to call it and what sequence to follow.

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