Api ebios rm operational scenarios create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds nothing at all: no mention that a body payload is required, no side effects, no required permissions, no what-happens-on-duplicate 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?

It is technically concise, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency – the one sentence present is a duplicate of the tool name and carries no information.

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 mutation endpoint taking an opaque free-form body with no output schema, the description should at minimum sketch payload fields and creation semantics. It contains nothing, so the definition is not usable for correct invocation.

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?

The single `body` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is typed only as a free-form object, so the agent has no idea which fields an operational scenario requires. The description supplies none of this, leaving the caller unable to construct a valid payload.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name, with no elaboration of what an 'operational scenario' is in the EBIOS RM context or what creating one entails. It does imply a create operation on that resource, but nothing beyond what the identifier already encodes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as operational_scenarios_list, operational_scenarios_update, or the batch_action variant. An agent must infer the usage entirely from the name.

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