refine_scenario_from_prompt

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

The description explains it applies changes and returns updated JSON, but does not disclose whether modifications are persisted immediately, if the scenario must be loaded first, or potential side effects. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise, using bullet points for supported changes and a clear header for parameters. Every sentence is informative and well-structured.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., scenario existence), or validation of the prompt, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 description explicitly explains both parameters: scenario_id as the UUID and refinement_prompt as the natural language description. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema which only provides titles.

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 clearly states the tool refines an existing scenario using natural language, with examples of adding platforms and changing duration. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_scenario_from_prompt which creates new scenarios.

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?

The description implies usage for modifying existing scenarios and provides concrete examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools.

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