Edit waveform names, grouping and time span

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing transactional semantics, that unknown fields are preserved, that unsafe opaque-reference changes are refused, and that resimulation is required afterward. That is meaningful behavioral context a caller could not derive from the annotations alone.

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?

Three dense telegraphic clauses, front-loaded with the operation scope, with no filler sentences. It is compact and every clause carries information, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic for an unfamiliar caller.

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?

For a destructive, transactional mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant behaviors (preservation, refusal, resimulation) that an agent needs before invoking it. The missing piece is sibling differentiation, but the core call contract is adequately covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter (confirm preview semantics, expectedSha256 freshness, per-operation fields). The description adds only that names must match compiled nodes, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (edit) and resource (SCF waveform structure) and enumerates the concrete operation families: rename/reorder, group/ungroup/radix, duration extension/truncation, input add/delete. This lets an agent separate it from scf_inspect or scf_create, but it never distinguishes it from the closely-named siblings scf_edit and scf_structure, which is the main ambiguity.

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?

"Names must match compiled nodes; resimulate after edits" gives a precondition and a follow-up action, which implies when the tool is applicable. However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against scf_edit, scf_stimulus_edit, or scf_structure, so routing is left to inference.

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