create_pressure_change_scenario

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

Key behavior disclosed: 'A clone of the source network is created; the original is unchanged.' No annotations provided, so description carries burden. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., run_simulation duration, unique scenario_id requirements) or error handling.

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?

Extremely concise: two introductory sentences plus a lean bullet list of arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and key cloning behavior.

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?

Covers the essential cloning and parameter semantics, but omits return value description (despite output schema existing) and prerequisites like network existence or valid reservoir IDs. No error condition hints.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining each parameter, including syntax example for reservoir_heads and clarifying run_simulation behavior. The example reduces ambiguity for the nested object.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Study pressure changes by modifying reservoir heads.' This differentiates it from sibling scenario tools that handle demand perturbations, leaks, contamination, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other scenario creation siblings. The description implies usage for pressure studies, but does not state conditions or alternatives.

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