cassette_update_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'update,' which implies mutation, but it does not state whether the tool replaces or merges with existing time blocks, whether it can modify only specified entries, or what side effects occur (e.g., overwrites all previous scenario data). Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 short sentence with no extraneous text. It is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. The sentence earns its place by stating the core action, but it could be improved by adding brief usage notes without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, scenario is an array of objects with 4 required nested fields), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the behavior of the update (replace vs. merge), the allowed types, or return values. No output schema is provided, so the agent lacks information on what to expect. The tool's context signals misleadingly state 'Has nested objects: false,' but the schema clearly contains nested objects; this is not the description's fault, but the description does not compensate for the complexity.

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 add meaning. It mentions 'scenario time blocks for a clip,' relating clipId to the clip and scenario to time blocks, but it does not explain the structure of the scenario array (start/end times, type, text) or that types are restricted to an enum. The agent gets minimal guidance on how to construct the scenario parameter correctly.

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 states a specific action: 'Update scenario time blocks for a clip.' It clearly identifies the resource (scenario time blocks) and the operation (update), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cassette_update_clip (which updates clip properties) or cassette_create_clip. However, the term 'scenario time blocks' is not defined, so an agent might not understand what that means without context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives such as cassette_update_clip for other clip updates. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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