executeScenario

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions dependency resolution as a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose potential side effects of executing a scenario, whether it modifies browser state, or error/failure behaviors. This is a significant gap for a tool that causes actions.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a valuable usage tip. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a complex execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical operational context: return values, side effects, error handling, and how execution fits into broader workflows. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral and outcome context is severely under-specified.

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 100%, and the schema already thoroughly describes all four parameters, including projectId's disambiguation role. The description only restates the projectId tip without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 the tool executes a scenario by name and includes dependency resolution, using a specific verb and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteScenario or saveScenario. The disambiguation tip adds precision.

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 a parameter-specific guideline for projectId but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like executeScript or deleteScenario. Usage context is implied by the name and core action, but no exclusions or alternative comparisons are given.

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