scenario_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: read-only steps auto-run, while the first mutating step returns a dry-run plan and waits for approval. It omits error handling, auth requirements, and idempotency details, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose first, then behavioral model, then the required next action. Every sentence is informative and well ordered for an agent scanning the definition.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the critical dry-run and approval workflow. The main gap is parameter documentation, though the required 'scenario' is implied and 'params' is optional.

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% across two parameters. The phrase 'Start a runbook' loosely implies what 'scenario' means, but there is no explanation of the optional 'params' object, its keys, or expected formats, so the description barely compensates for the empty schema.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('runbook'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling scenario_step by presenting scenario_step as the continuation tool rather than the starter.

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?

It clearly states when to call the sibling scenario_step (only after owner approval) and instructs the agent to show the plan to the owner. It does not explicitly state when not to use scenario_start or compare it against scenario_list, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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