Write timed simulator stimulus

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: writes create backups, a preview/apply workflow exists, and an existing SCF can take precedence over the written VEC. The SCF-precedence conflict and backup behavior are exactly the kind of non-obvious traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences with no obvious padding, but the opening is cryptic ('bare pattern rows and one final semicolon') and the important SCF-precedence caveat is buried at the end rather than front-loaded. It is adequately sized but not well prioritized for an agent scanning for the key decision.

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 complex 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the VEC format quirks and the SCF-precedence trap, which is helpful. It still omits error/validation behavior and is ambiguous about what 'verified' means, leaving clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly, making 3 the baseline. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'Explicit bus nodes are MSB-first' and the INTERVAL reference, both of which restate schema content.

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 states it generates a multi-row VEC shape with INTERVAL, pattern rows, and a terminating semicolon, which is a specific verb+resource, but the phrasing is jargon-dense and does not clearly distinguish it from the sibling scf_stimulus_edit. An agent can guess the domain but not cleanly separate this from the other stimulus tool.

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?

It offers conditional guidance ('Existing SCF may take precedence; inspect/delete its backed-up copy or open/convert VEC in the GUI') and notes preview/apply, which implies usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over scf_stimulus_edit or simulate_and_verify, so selection is left largely to inference.

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