what_if_multi

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey safety and behavior. It does disclose that the live workflow is unchanged, a key safety property, but it does not explain other behavioral aspects such as output format, dependencies, or error conditions.

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 with no redundant words, immediately front-loading the core action, and is appropriately concise for its limited content.

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?

Given the presence of four parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too terse to support correct invocation. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and does not compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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 0%, and the description makes no reference to any parameter (nodeIds, resolvedAt, workflowId, principalId), leaving all parameters semantically unexplained. The single phrase 'workflow nodes' only loosely maps to nodeIds.

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 action ('Simulate resolving multiple workflow nodes') and the key constraint ('without changing the live workflow'), which also distinguishes it from the sibling 'simulate_resolution' by explicitly specifying multiple nodes.

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 the use case for simulating multiple workflow nodes but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'simulate_resolution' or provide any exclusion criteria.

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