catalog_post_scenario_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, lowering the disclosure burden. The description usefully adds the create-or-update (upsert) semantics and the endpoint, but says nothing about required permissions, what happens to unspecified fields, or side effects.

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?

Two concise lines with the action front-loaded and the endpoint suffixed; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though slightly terse in that it omits any qualifier.

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 moderate mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential action and resource. It lacks context on the scenario-config domain, create/update distinction, and side effects, but there is no output schema requiring return-value explanation.

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 100%, so body/expandBody/subject/enabled/scenarioId are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('creates or updates') and a specific resource ('notification scenario configuration of an organization'), which clearly separates it from the get/delete scenario-config siblings. It does not name any sibling or explicitly differentiate the upsert from the generic catalog_post, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus catalog_get_scenario_config, catalog_delete_scenario_configs_by_scenario_id, or the generic catalog_post, nor on create-vs-update conditions. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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