create_scenario

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true which aligns with the description's 'Save' action. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies the model_id relationship, specifies that each scenario is tied to one asset's model, and details the factor spec format and supported types ('fixed', 'percentile', 'shock'). This goes above and beyond the annotation's minimal safety hint.

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 yet information-dense, with a clear opening sentence, an immediate caveat ('does NOT run a simulation'), a critical model_id warning, and a compact factor format explanation. Every sentence contributes essential guidance without unnecessary fluff.

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 create operation with nested objects, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, alternatives, prerequisites, format details, and behavioral constraints. The explicit callout to list_model_groups and the factor type list ensure an agent can confidently invoke the tool. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds crucial meaning for model_id ('individual per-asset model UUID from list_model_groups → models[].model_id, NOT the model_group_id') and factor_values (format and supported types). These additions are essential for correct parameter usage and significantly enhance the schema's basic descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save a named Moment scenario template for later reuse.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from compute_returns ('This does NOT run a simulation'), making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings like simulate_flow_scenario and update_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?

The description explicitly tells when to use and when not to use: '...use compute_returns with the factor values instead, or for ad-hoc tests' and implies use for reusable templates. It also provides a critical prerequisite (model_id from list_model_groups) and explains the distinction from model_group_id, giving clear decision guidance.

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