simulate_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the most critical behavior: the tool does not modify live workflow state. This is a key safety trait for an agent. It doesn't cover permissions or additional side effects, but the non-destructive nature is effectively communicated.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant or filler words and communicates the essential behavior efficiently.

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?

The description is minimal but covers the primary contextual need: non-destructive simulation. However, it doesn't explain what a 'resolution' entails or provide any detail about the simulation's scope or output, relying entirely on the output schema. For a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description provides zero parameter-specific information, leaving all four parameters (nodeId, resolvedAt, workflowId, principalId) unexplained. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by hinting at what each parameter means or how they relate to the simulation. This is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('workflow resolution'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_action by explicitly noting it does not change live workflow state, making its 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 a clear use case: when you want to preview or test a resolution without causing real changes. It provides a strong contextual cue ('without changing live workflow state') but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, unlike the high-calibration example.

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