create_leakage_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so well: it discloses cloning, pipe splitting, midpoint junction addition, and optional simulation run. No behavioral contradictions.

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 succinct (8 lines) with a clear structure: purpose sentence, behavioral notes, then parameter list. Every sentence provides 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 (cloning, pipe modification) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's effect and parameter usage. No obvious gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description includes an Args block that explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Fraction of flow that leaks'), adding significant semantic value beyond the schema titles.

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 simulates a pipe burst by adding a leakage emitter at the pipe midpoint. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_contamination_event or create_pressure_change_scenario.

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 explains that a clone of the source network is created, implying the original is unchanged. This gives context on when to use the tool (for safe simulation) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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