create_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a mutation (create) but does not explain what 'empty' means in practice, what the return value is (no output schema exists), whether an id is auto-generated, or any side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded, but it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — it earns its brevity at the cost of omitting useful behavioral and parameter context.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, whether optional params (project, folder) affect behavior, or what 'empty' means operationally. More context is needed.

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 43%, below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters (id, name, folder, description). It adds nothing about any of the 7 parameters. The description's 'empty' hint touches scenario state, not parameter 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?

Description states a clear verb (create), resource (scenario), and a meaningful qualifier ('empty') that implies the scenario starts with no flows/steps. The resource name distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools (create_flow, create_util, create_page_object), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name — you create a scenario when you need a new scenario — but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether a project or folder must exist first). Adequate but leaves inference to the agent.

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