run_scenario

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: steps execute sequentially, `extract` propagates values to later steps, and the three verbosity modes are defined with their default and what each shows. It does not say what happens when a step fails (abort vs continue) or disclose the external side effects implied by openWorldHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by execution semantics and the verbosity legend. The verbosity enumeration is terse to the point of being slightly hard to parse, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and verbosity semantics are covered. However, for a mutating, open-world executor with five undocumented parameters, the description omits failure handling, side-effect scope, and two of five parameters.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry all parameter meaning; it partially does by explaining path vs inline `content` and enumerating the verbosity values. `variables` (how values reach step interpolation) and `environment` are left completely undocumented, and the mutual exclusivity/optionality of path and content is only implied.

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+resource ("Run one scenario file (or inline YAML 'content')") and clarifies the unit is a single scenario, which hints at the distinction from run_test_suite. It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer how it differs from validate_scenario.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool obviously executes scenarios rather than validating them, but the description never says when to prefer it over validate_scenario or run_test_suite, nor states prerequisites (e.g., that a scenario should be validated first, or that steps hit external services).

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