set_hydraulic_timestep

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the fact that it 'sets' a value. It omits information about side effects, required permissions, or whether the change is applied immediately or requires a subsequent simulation. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 very short (two lines), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure for explaining parameters or usage. It is not overly verbose, but its brevity results in significant gaps.

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 that the tool is a simple setter with a required session ID, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the change will affect subsequent simulations, nor does it describe the output schema (though one exists). For a mutation tool with no annotations, more context is needed about when and how the time step takes effect.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond repeating their titles. For 'network_id', it adds 'Session id.' which is minimal; for 'timestep_s', it says 'Hydraulic time step in seconds,' which adds some meaning over the schema's type and title. However, with zero coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly—e.g., specifying valid ranges or units beyond 'seconds'.

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 'Set the hydraulic time step,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like set_quality_timestep or set_simulation_duration, which also set time steps for different aspects. The name itself provides differentiation, but the description could explicitly clarify its unique scope.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a loaded network). The description lacks context on typical workflow placement, such as before running a hydraulic simulation.

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