configure_inference_scenario

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description adds only the 'bounded generic vs replay' boundary. However, the description says 'Create' while the schema allows an operation of 'replace,' and it gives no detail about side effects, update semantics, or how expected_configuration_id is used.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is concise and memorable, though its brevity is disproportionate to the complexity of the 19-parameter 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?

A configuration tool with 19 parameters, required providers, create/replace operations, provider-specific artifacts, and sibling planning/running tools needs substantially more guidance. The output schema and annotations help, but the description alone does not give an agent enough context to configure a scenario correctly.

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?

With 19 parameters and only about 16% schema description coverage, the tool description carries almost no parameter guidance. It does not explain operation create vs replace, provider-specific constraints, request_rate/burstiness relationships, or expected_configuration_id semantics, so an agent is left to infer nearly everything from raw schema properties.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates a bounded generic benchmark scenario, and it explicitly excludes being a provider rollout replay engine. This gives an agent a core sense of what the tool is for, though the language is somewhat jargon-heavy and does not name a sibling tool explicitly.

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 only usage signal is the negative statement 'not a provider rollout replay engine.' It does not say when to use this tool versus configure_inference_server, plan_inference_scenario, or run_inference_scenario, nor does it explain the difference between creating and replacing a scenario.

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