emu_apply_scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose what 'apply' does in terms of state changes, side effects, whether it mutates the emulator state, or if it requires prerequisites (e.g., seeded fixtures). It does not mention that it likely triggers a scenario execution that could be long-running or produce evidence, which is critical for an agent to understand.

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 extremely concise, which is good for front-loading, but it is under-specified. It is a single short sentence that earns nothing beyond the name. It doesn't add context about the 'v2' aspect or what applying a scenario entails. It is not wasteful, but it is minimal.

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 the complexity of the input schema (4 parameters, nested objects, enums) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. An agent needs to know the tool's role in the scenario workflow, what side effects to expect, and how it relates to other scenario tools. The description's brevity leaves too much to inference for a non-trivial operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters, but the input schema is rich with enums for 'name' and nested objects for 'steps'. The enum values give clear clues about scenario types, and the schema defines structure; however, the description adds no meaning about how 'input', 'steps', or 'phoneNames' interplay, so the agent must rely on schema inference. This is a baseline score given the schema's self-documenting nature.

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 'Apply a v2 emulator scenario' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating an action to apply a scenario. However, it does not differentiate from other scenario-related tools like emu_list_scenarios, emu_get_scenario_run, or emu_replay_scenario_run, relying on the verb 'apply' to distinguish it. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives or context for applying scenarios, such as when to use emu_replay_scenario_run for replaying existing runs versus applying a new scenario. The tool's role in the scenario lifecycle is implied but not explicitly stated.

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