Api ebios rm strategic scenarios create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, not what the request body must contain, not permission requirements, not what happens on duplicate creation.

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 short, but only because it is under-specified, not because it is efficient. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose or behavior to justify its length.

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 create/mutation endpoint with an untyped body, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description omits everything an agent needs: payload shape, required relationships, and effect of the call.

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 0% and there is a single opaque 'body' parameter typed only as a free-form object with additionalProperties=true. The description provides no field names or structure, so the agent has no idea what to send.

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 literally the tool name 'api_ebios_rm_strategic_scenarios_create' repeated verbatim, which is tautology. The name does imply creating an EBIOS RM strategic scenario, so an agent can infer the verb and resource, but the description itself contributes nothing beyond the identifier.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the many siblings such as ebios_rm_strategic_scenarios_update, _partial_update, _batch_action_create, or _list. Nothing routes the agent among alternatives.

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