Generate scenario

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing latency (30s–2min), the dual execution model (pollable task handle for task-capable clients vs blocking for others), batch semantics, and the failure mode (structured error, e.g. incompatible tags). Annotations only say it is a non-read, non-destructive write, so the description carries meaningful extra behavioral context.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: capability, execution timing/model, and return/error behavior. It is dense but each clause carries information; the batch detail is arguably the only overloaded part.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (uuid, batch uuids, structured error). For a 9-parameter tool it leaves context_prompt and name semantics to the schema, but the critical complexity (batching, task handling, failure) is covered.

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 78% and parameters like name, context_prompt, and scenario_type already carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the num_scenarios/tag_pool relationship rather than adding new meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Generates a new test scenario") and enumerates the two valid scenario types, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_scenarios or preview_run_cost, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear context: single vs batch mode, the tag_pool prerequisite for num_scenarios > 1, and points to list_compatible_tags when picking tags. There are no explicit when-not-to-use statements or sibling routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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