run_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the on-demand/active scheduling precondition, which is a real constraint not in the schema, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether the run blocks, or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the precondition follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 trigger/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested 'data' object, the description leaves key gaps: what the run returns, whether it is synchronous, and what happens if the scenario is not on-demand. Only the scheduling precondition is 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 coverage is 100%, so scenarioId, data, and responsive are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (Run) and resource (scenario), and 'immediately' distinguishes it from the get/list/create/update/activate siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer over it.

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?

Provides a precondition for use: the scenario must be active and set to on-demand scheduling. That implies 'when to use' but gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. why not activate_scenario first).

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