Update World Model Scenario

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, providing basic safety context. The description adds no extra behavioral details, such as whether this is a partial update, what happens if the scenario doesn't exist, or any permission requirements. It is consistent with annotations but adds no value beyond them.

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 clear sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple update operation with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether the scenario must already exist, whether other fields are preserved, or what the return value looks like. These gaps are partially mitigated by the schema and annotations but leave room for improvement.

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%, with each parameter clearly explained in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or relationships between parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 a scenario on a world model' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (scenario on a world model), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lyzr_world_model_add_scenarios and lyzr_world_model_delete_scenario. However, it does not specify which fields are updated (e.g., name, description), which is slightly vague but acceptable given the schema.

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 context implies this tool is used when an existing scenario needs modification, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like add or delete scenario. No preconditions (e.g., existence of the scenario_id) are mentioned, so usage is implied rather than clearly instructed.

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