Scenario.com MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add assets' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on duplicate asset IDs (e.g., ignored or error), if there are rate limits, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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—'Add assets to a specific collection' directly conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't address key aspects like error handling, response format, or behavioral nuances (e.g., idempotency), leaving the AI agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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 50% (only 'collectionId' has a description), and the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the format of 'assetIds' (e.g., UUIDs, maximum array size) or provide examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in minimal added value over the schema.

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 'Add assets to a specific collection' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('assets to a specific collection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'put-asset-by-asset-id' (which modifies individual assets) or 'post-collection' (which creates collections), leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific tool over similar ones.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing collection ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot create collections), or compare to siblings like 'put-assets-tags-by-asset-id' for tagging assets. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to select this tool appropriately in complex scenarios.

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