Create a scenario

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

The description discloses important behavioral aspects beyond annotations: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that it may notify recipients or change tenant data. This complements the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by adding specific side effects and prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations.

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 reasonably concise, stating the action, endpoint, body fields, reference, and requirements in a structured way. The list of body fields is necessary but adds length; it could be trimmed by linking to the reference. Overall it is front-loaded with the action and endpoint, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity of the body (nested JSON with many fields), the description provides a reference link, a list of fields, and critical requirements (opt-in, confirm:true). It does not describe the response format, but for a mutation tool that is less critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand how to construct the request, though field semantics are left to the reference.

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 covers path (formId), body (generic JSON), query (empty), and confirm (boolean). The description lists the expected body fields (attachments, name, priority, etc.), which adds value over the generic body schema, but it does not explain the meaning or format of each field. The schema description for body already references the API docs, and the description adds the field list but not detailed semantics. Coverage is 75%, so the description partially compensates but does not fully explain 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 clearly states the action ('Create a scenario'), the specific resource (scenario in a form), and the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/scenarios). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_scenarios, modify_a_scenario, and delete_a_scenario, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is for creating a new scenario, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like modify_a_scenario or state when to prefer this tool. It does mention the prerequisite of operator write opt-in and confirm:true, which is a usage condition, but it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or when to choose a sibling.

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