Your scenarion&description is not a test scenario to me, it is a feature description. One that is hard to read, which makes assumptions and lacks focus to be bluntly honest.
I would rewrite it in a As a ..., I want ... , So that ... user story format:
User Story 002: Automaticaly match pet owners names from PMS system
As Jack (some role) the user of the IVR assistance, (The persona)
I want pet owner names to be prepopulated if available, (The functional feature)
So that I can quickly handle phone calls without unnecessary interuptions (The value)
IVR uses PMS database field
<Pet Owner number register> for number matching
If number is not matched ask for the pet owner name, as described in User story 001
<some role> is probably not the admin, the admin maintains the systems, probably he doesnt really care about how it functionally works. Maybe it is Jack the veterinary? I dont know your domain, but I doubt the correct persona is the admin. Also I like to use the firstname of a real person that does that action or uses the feature.
The feature is a behaviour you want to happen, you are describing something doesn't is not happening. This leaves room for interpretation what happens.
The value you do not describe the value for the persona.
Test scenarios for the feature could be:
- Pet owner name is matched and displayed correctly
- Pet owner name is notmatched and is asked
- Pet owner name is asked when PMS system is down
Maybe write them in Given When Then scenario style:
Scenario: name is matched and displayed correctly
Given the pet owner name is in the PMS system
When I open the screen for pet "Jack Russel"
Then then the pet owner name is "Saskia"
I like the combination of a User Story, Acceptance Criteria and GivenWhenThen scenario's, because it makes our team think, communicate and colleborate on requirements and testcases.