update_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation but does not state side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on ongoing calls. The claim about 'dynamically changing call logic' is vague and could even be misinterpreted as affecting live calls without qualification.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core action. It is not bloated, though it could be slightly better structured by front-loading the required parameter or adding a note about checking existing scenarios first.

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 under-specified. It does not mention that scenario_id is required, what happens to active calls using the old script, whether the change takes effect immediately, or any confirmation/response behavior. An agent might invoke it without understanding risks, making this incomplete for safe use.

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 have descriptive names and meanings in the schema. The description only mirrors the schema by mentioning 'code or name', without adding deeper relationships (e.g., whether script and scenario_name are mutually exclusive or how scenario_id is used). Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds minimal extra value.

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 verb ('update') and the resource ('VoxEngine scenario'), and specifies what can be updated ('code or name'). It differentiates from sibling tools, which are mostly read-only getters, so the purpose is distinct and 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., retrieving the scenario first with get_scenarios). The phrase 'allows the agent to dynamically change call logic' gives a high-level use case but not concrete usage conditions or exclusions.

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