scenario_create

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

The description adds minimal behavioral info beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description mentions 'surface-relative' and 'replacement needs two explicit flags', providing some additional context, but does not disclose side effects like file creation or permissions needed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is concise with no redundancy, though it sacrifices some detail.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, output schema present), the description is severely lacking. It does not cover expected outcomes, prerequisites, or typical usage patterns, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without additional inference.

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% (no descriptions on tool parameters). The tool description does not explain any parameters (e.g., ref, vehicles, overwrite). The nested objects in the schema have their own descriptions, but the overall parameter semantics are insufficient for correct use.

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 creates surface-relative scenario files, with an additional hint about replacement requiring two flags. The verb 'create' and resource 'scenario files' are specific, and it is distinguishable from siblings like scenario_list or scenario_load. However, it does not explain what a scenario file represents or its broader 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scenario_load for loading or scenario_control for controlling). The mention of replacement needing two flags is implicit but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.

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