create_demand_perturbation

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

The description discloses that a clone is created (no modification to original) and that simulation can be optionally run. With no annotations, this provides useful behavioral context, though it omits details like prerequisites or return format.

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, front-loading the purpose and using a clear Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose 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 parameter count and lack of schema descriptions, the description covers the essential inputs and behavior. It does not mention the output schema (though one exists), but for a mutation tool the focus on inputs and side effects is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: network_id, node_demands (with example format), scenario_id (auto-generated if omitted), and run_simulation (default true). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool applies base-demand multipliers to nodes and optionally simulates. It explicitly mentions creating a clone, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_leakage_event or set_node_base_demand.

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 notes that a clone is created (so no permanent changes) and that simulation is optional. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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