Preview Scenario Deletion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool shows scenario details and the count of related test runs, and that scenario_id takes precedence over name. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention edge cases like missing both parameters.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and an explicitly labeled Args block. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff or redundancy. The front-loaded design aids quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), and the strong annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the tool's purpose, the follow-up action, and the parameter nuances, making it fully adequate for the task.

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 provides no descriptions for the two optional parameters (0% coverage), so the description carries this burden. It explains the meaning of 'name' and 'scenario_id' and the precedence relationship, which is essential for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state that at least one parameter should be provided, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 purpose: 'Preview what will be deleted before removing a scenario.' It specifies the action (preview) and the resource (scenario deletion), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool delete_scenario by explicitly naming the confirmation workflow. It also details what will be shown: scenario details and the count of related test runs.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use delete_scenario to confirm deletion after reviewing.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, making the workflow clear. The contextual hint that this is a pre-deletion review step is sufficient for tool selection.

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