survey_agent_scenarios_save

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that scenarios are saved, but does not specify whether this overwrites existing scenarios, requires authentication, is idempotent, or what happens on success or failure. Critical behavioral traits for a mutation tool are omitted.

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 very short and front-loaded with the verb and input format. Every word contributes value. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 has two required parameters, no annotations, and an existing but not shown output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or the relationship to 'survey_agent_scenarios_get'. A save operation typically needs to clarify whether it creates or updates, which is missing.

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%, placing heavy reliance on the description. The description clarifies the expected format of 'scenarios_json' (JSON array or object with 'scenarios' key), but does not explain the purpose or constraints of 'survey_id'. The name implies it identifies a survey, but no confirmation or additional semantics are provided.

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 uses the verb 'Save' with the resource 'post-submit scenarios', and clarifies the expected input format (JSON array or object with 'scenarios' key). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'survey_agent_scenarios_get' by indicating a write operation. However, the term 'post-submit scenarios' is somewhat cryptic and could be more explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'survey_agent_settings_save' or 'survey_agent_update'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow context, or conditions under which this tool should or should not be used.

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