create_contamination_event

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

With no annotations, the description adds transparency by mentioning cloning of the source network and automatic quality type setting. However, it does not discuss reversibility, error conditions, or what happens with the scenario_id if not provided.

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 concise and well-structured: a high-level summary, important behavioral notes, then a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (8 parameters, many sibling tools, output schema exists), the description covers core functionality but omits details like return value description, scenario_id behavior, and potential restrictions (e.g., node type). It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain parameters. It provides basic explanations for all 8 parameters, including the source_type enum values. However, details are minimal (e.g., no constraints on time values).

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 'Inject a contaminant at a node for a specified time window and simulate.' It also specifies that a clone is created and quality type set to CHEM, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_leakage_event or create_demand_perturbation.

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 usage for contamination scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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