Update a scenario

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

Despite annotations already indicating mutation and destructiveness, the description adds valuable context: it requires PROFITLEE_API_TOKEN and states that passing inputs triggers recomputation of outputs. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not detail edge cases like partial updates or irreversible changes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then elaborates on parameter usage and authentication. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the core usage (update by id with optional name/inputs), authentication, and recomputation behavior. With a rich input schema and an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values; however, it omits what happens if neither name nor inputs is provided, which is a minor gap.

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%, but the description enhances parameter meaning by explaining the effect of passing `name` (rename) vs `inputs` (replace and recompute) and noting they can be used together. This connects the parameters to their intended outcomes, adding value beyond individual field descriptions.

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 starts with 'Update an existing Profitlee scenario by id', clearly identifying the verb (update), resource (Profitlee scenario), and key qualifier (by id). It differentiates from siblings like save_scenario (create) and delete_scenario by focusing on modification of an existing entity.

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 explains when to use the tool (for existing scenarios) and how to use it: 'Pass name to rename it, inputs to replace calculator inputs and recompute outputs, or both.' It gives clear context, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like save_scenario.

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