AxTidy3D_start_simulation

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral fact: this is the only step that spends real Flex credits, which is not in annotations. However, it misses other behavioral details like whether it's read-only or irreversible, or what happens on failure. With no annotations, it partially covers burden but leaves gaps.

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?

Description is efficient, with critical cost warning front-loaded. It uses three sentences without fluff. Slight redundancy: 'previously estimated' and later 'estimated_cost_flex_credits' repeat the estimation concept, but overall concise.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, description covers essential usage flow (estimate, confirm, start). However, missing details on what confirms success or error handling, and no mention of return value. It is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in schema. The description adds context on where task_id comes from (execute_code) and that task_name is optional display, but these are also in schema. Minimal additional value beyond 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 identifies the tool's action: starting a previously estimated Tidy3D task. It specifies the resource (cloud task) and distinguishes it from other Tidy3D steps (generate, execute, status). However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only after estimated cost has been confirmed by user. It also specifies the prerequisite (task_status must be 'estimated') and reference to the task_id from execute_code, clearly separating this from other Tidy3D operations.

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