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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important runtime behaviors: actions come back with null default payloads, only 13 of 137 node types are type-checked, guessed payloads are stored with HTTP 200 and fail later, and each argument mode changes what is returned. It also clarifies the critical link-type routing detail for actionType. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, critical usage warning with rationale, and per-parameter behavior are all covered in a tight structure. The most important call-before guidance is front-loaded ahead of optional parameter 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?

Given that no output schema is present, the description supplies the needed return behavior for the main invocation modes: no arguments returns the graph model and workflow; outputs='fail' identifies error-handling targets; actionType returns payload schema, default payload, and link types; scenarioId returns accepted trigger events. It also explains the key risk that motivates the tool. 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: outputs='fail' maps to attachable error-handling steps, actionType returns the payload schema plus default payload plus routed link types, and scenarioId returns accepted trigger events for that scenario.

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 explicitly names the resource: scenario node types and the JSON schema of their polymorphic payload configuration. It immediately distinguishes this from sibling schema tools by focusing on scenario nodes and explains why the OpenAPI schema cannot cover the payload shape. The imperative 'CALL THIS BEFORE creating or configuring ANY scenario node' makes the purpose immediately actionable.

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?

There is a clear, explicit when-to-use instruction: call before creating or configuring any scenario node, with concrete reasons involving default payloads, type-check coverage, and silent HTTP 200 failures. The description does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as check_scenario_node_payload, so alternative selection is left partly implicit.

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