create_simulation_scenario

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond creation. It does not state whether the scenario is immediately runnable, whether it is org/workspace scoped, what identifier is returned (no output schema exists), or how duplicates/names are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, defining the resource by its two core components. It is efficient, though the compactness comes at the cost of detail that would otherwise be valuable.

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 nested evaluations schema and 5-parameter shape are complex, and the very rich schema covers most field-level meaning, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say what the caller gets back and how the new scenario is consumed downstream.

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 name, path, instructions, evaluations, and additionalFields in detail. The description adds only a light gloss that evaluations determine pass/fail, which is already implied by the evaluation fields' own 'required' and comparator semantics.

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 and resource ('Creates a simulation scenario') and adds what the artifact contains: tester instructions plus pass/fail evaluations. It distinguishes the artifact conceptually from create_simulation or create_simulation_personality but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus create_simulation, create_simulation_suite, or create_simulation_personality. It also omits the typical workflow implication that a scenario must be referenced by a simulation before it can run, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites from sibling names alone.

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