Scenario.com MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Duplicate' implies a write operation that creates a copy, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Duplicate' specifies the action, 'an asset' specifies the resource. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., the new asset ID, success status), error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of duplicating assets in a system with many related tools, more context is needed for the agent to use this effectively.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying duplication occurs. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how 'originalAssets' relates to duplication) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Duplicate an asset' clearly states the action (duplicate) and resource (asset), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling operations like 'post-asset' (create new) or 'put-asset-by-asset-id' (update existing), which would require more specificity for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'post-asset' for creating new assets, 'put-asset-by-asset-id' for updating), there's no indication of when duplication is preferred over creation or when this tool should be avoided. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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