simulation_set_source

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies a mutation of simulation state. It says nothing about persistence, required model state, side effects on an in-progress run, or what the caller gets back.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a seven-parameter simulation configuration call.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and seven undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently. It covers the conceptual effect but not the mechanics an agent needs in order to set this tool up correctly.

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% across seven parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at two of them ('fixed number of parts' for units, 'starting at a given time' for start). Required parameters like path and interval, plus work_dir, frame_path, and model_root, receive no meaning at all, and the odd mapping of units to part count goes unexplained.

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 concrete verb and effect: make a Source emit a fixed number of parts beginning at a given time. That is more precise than the name alone, but it does not clarify which object is being targeted (the 'path' parameter) or how it relates to siblings such as method_set_source or model_set_property.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the sibling setters, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the simulation must be stopped or reset first), and no statement of what happens on repeat calls or conflicting configuration.

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