create_multi_failure_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes that a clone is created and the original is unchanged, which is helpful. However, it omits details like what happens when run_simulation is false, error conditions, or persistence of cloned scenarios.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a bulleted argument list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every element adds value with no redundant or filler text.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, clone behavior, and parameter meanings. It does not explain return values, but the presence of an output schema makes that less critical. Minor gaps exist regarding optional parameter effects and scenario lifecycle.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all five parameters (e.g., 'Source network id', 'List of pipe ids to close'). This significantly clarifies the parameters beyond the schema's type/title-only definitions, though it could note defaults and optionality.

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 simultaneous pipe and/or pump failures (closure) and creates a cloned scenario, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_leakage_event or create_pressure_change_scenario. The verb 'create' and resource 'multi_failure_scenario' are specific and match the tool name.

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 use for simulating multiple pipe or pump failures but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use the tool, so it relies on context from sibling names.

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