Scenario.com MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, concurrency handling (e.g., with locks), or side effects like snapshot creation. The input schema hints at lock and snapshot behaviors, but the description doesn't surface these critical aspects, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from more detail.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Update' entails, return values, error conditions, or interactions with sibling tools. For a tool with significant behavioral implications, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 high at 89%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'Update a canvas asset', which doesn't clarify semantics like what 'canvas' or 'thumbnail' entail. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the 11% gap or add meaningful context.

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 'Update a canvas asset' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('canvas asset'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools like 'put-assets-by-collection-id' or 'put-models-by-model-id', nor does it specify what aspects of the asset are updated. This makes it vague compared to siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including other 'put-' operations and asset-related tools like 'post-asset' or 'lock-asset-by-asset-id', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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