Simulate Custom Format Change

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

The description states 'dry-run simulate... simulation', indicating no side effects, but this is repetitive. With no annotations, more details about behavior (e.g., output, limitations, or failure modes) are needed. The one-sentence description is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, but it contains redundancy ('Run a dry-run simulate custom format change simulation'). It is not overly long, but could be more concise and informative.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema) and the many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the simulation does, what 'custom format change' means, or how parameters affect the simulation.

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?

The input schema has 13 parameters, including nested objects and enums, but the description provides no information about any parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 'simulate custom format change', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this simulation from other similar simulation tools in the sibling list, such as simulate_cutoff_change or simulate_score_change.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, best practices, or situations where this tool is appropriate or not.

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