Update EV scenario

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. For a mutation tool, it does not disclose whether the payload replaces the entire scenario or merges with existing content, what happens to unspecified fields, or if there are side effects. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries a heavy burden that it fails to meet.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence that immediately communicates the core action. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. While under-specified in other dimensions, conciseness is not a flaw here.

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 that the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the payload structure, the meaning of scenario_id, any constraints, or what the expected outcome/return value is. This is effectively a bare-bones stub that leaves the agent without essential operational details.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'scenario_id' or the expected structure/format of 'payload', leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap since the payload is a generic object with no defined schema or guidance.

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 'Update an existing EV scenario' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (EV scenario), making it distinct from sibling operations like create, delete, get, or list. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not elaborate on what exactly can be updated.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, whether this should be used for modifying existing scenarios, or when to prefer cymulate_ev_templates_update or other update-related tools. The usage context 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.