save_scenario

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses validation and persistence, return dict structure, and storage path. However, it does not mention whether overwriting existing files occurs, permissions required, or detailed error scenarios.

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?

Description is concise: one sentence for purpose, then structured Args and Returns. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, parameter details, and return values. Lacks information on overwrite behavior, validation criteria beyond 'valid', and relationship with validate_scenario sibling. Missing details for a save tool.

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 only provides 'string' type for both parameters. Description adds meaning: manifest_json is a JSON string of a ScenarioManifest, and name is stored under 'scenarios/<name>.json'. This is helpful and compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 it validates and persists a scenario manifest for later replay. It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_scenario (which likely only validates) and replay_scenario, but could be more explicit about the unique combination of validation and persistence.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_scenario or run_scenario. The purpose implies saving, but there is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' instructions.

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