Create Scenario Version

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

Annotations only indicate it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral details: it automatically determines the next version number (e.g., 'my-test-v2'), treats the original as version 1, and specifies the row structure. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if base_name does not exist) or side effects beyond creation.

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 efficiently structured: a clear one-line summary, followed by a concise explanation of version numbering and an Args list. The Args section is useful and not overly verbose. It earns its place, though the docstring format is slightly technical.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the essentials: purpose, versioning behavior, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidelines relative to alternatives and does not address prerequisites or error cases, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: base_name is the original scenario name, and rows are data rows with 'input' and 'result' fields. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types, though it could further clarify required field types or whether rows must contain exactly those keys.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new version of an existing scenario with updated data.' It uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like save_scenario by emphasizing versioning and automatic version-number determination.

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 description implies usage context (creating new versions with auto-incremented numbering) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like save_scenario, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The behavior of generating the next version number is a clear signal, but no direct usage guidance is given.

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