Scenario.com MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Modify' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the tool actually returns. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how this tool behaves beyond the basic implication of modification.

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?

While technically concise (one short sentence), this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence 'Modify the given `presetId`' doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information - it's essentially empty content that fails to communicate anything useful beyond what's already in the tool name.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate for this complexity level. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters interact, what behavior to expect, or what gets returned. For a tool that modifies model presets (which likely involves configuration changes), this description leaves all critical context missing.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds zero parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'presetId' refers to, how 'modelId' and 'presetId' relate, what 'originalAssets' controls, or the implications of setting 'isDefault'. The description doesn't compensate for the 25% gap in schema coverage (presetId has no description) and provides no additional context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 'Modify the given `presetId`' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what modification means (update settings? change values?), what resource is being modified (a model preset), or what fields can be changed. While the name suggests it's about model presets, the description adds no meaningful clarification beyond the name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool should be used instead of other preset-related tools (like 'post-model-preset-by-model-id' or 'get-model-presets-by-model-id'), or any context about typical use cases. The agent receives zero usage direction.

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