Save a scenario

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Profitlee validates the inputs and computes outputs server-side' and 'Requires PROFITLEE_API_TOKEN.' This goes beyond the structured hints by disclosing server-side processing and authentication requirements.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Create a saved Profitlee scenario'). Every word earns its place, covering purpose, behavior, and auth in a compact, readable format.

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 complex nested input schema, presence of output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the key aspects (creation, validation, server-side computation, auth). A slight gap is not detailing idempotency or duplicate-name behavior, but this is not critical with openWorldHint=true and a comprehensive schema.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds cross-reference value by stating 'calculator inputs using the same field meanings and units as calculate_profit,' which helps the agent reuse known semantics without re-deriving them. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the function: 'Create a saved Profitlee scenario' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_profit (which likely doesn't save), update_scenario, and delete_scenario by emphasizing the 'saved' scenario creation aspect.

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 implies usage for creating and saving a scenario ('Create a saved Profitlee scenario') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks comparison to calculate_profit for preview cases or update_scenario for modifications, so usage is inferred rather than directly stated.

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