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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the scenario is 'immutable', stale bases conflict (optimistic concurrency), and 'history is never overwritten', which explains the append model and why operationKey must be retained.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the concurrency/immutability constraints following. Almost every clause carries information, though the middle sentence packs three separate instructions together.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a very deep nested scenario schema, the description covers the behavioral essentials (immutability, concurrency conflict, idempotency key) but says nothing about what the scenario object must contain or the meaning of projectId, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 20% (just operationKey), so the description must carry more. It usefully explains expectedRevision (null vs current revision), environmentId (must be authorized) and operationKey retention, but leaves the entire large nested 'scenario' object and projectId undocumented, so compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('Save one immutable project scenario') and scopes it negatively by excluding target binding, batch, Tool allocation and assessment. This lets an agent separate it from the batch/tool siblings, though it never names a direct alternative such as firedrill_create_batch or firedrill_scenarios.

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 actionable invocation guidance: pick an authorized environment, pass expectedRevision null for a new ID versus the current revision for an append, and retain operationKey before dispatch. The creation-vs-append branch is the key usage decision, but no alternative tool is ever named, so the 'when not to use this' dimension is absent.

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