Run simulation (guarded)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), disclosing that the server auto-runs validate_project and refuses to start on errors (점검 실패), where the deck is written, and that sim_preflight additionally checks output intervals and grid resolution. That is exactly the mutation-safety context the annotations cannot express.

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 core behavior and the refusal condition are front-loaded and each sentence carries routing or pre-condition value. The trailing Korean sentence restates the validate_project/refuse-to-run behavior already given in English, which is the only redundant element in an otherwise dense paragraph.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers inputs, pre-conditions, side effects, and the preferred tool chain, plus the user-approval gate. The one gap is post-call behavior: it never says the run is asynchronous or points the agent at sim_status/sim_log_tail to follow progress.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining how folder_name is used (write destination Documents/bulc_<folder_name>, one per scenario per GEN-019); solver_type is left entirely to the enum descriptions, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and a distinguishing scope ('Guarded run for any BULC version') plus the side effect of writing the project to Documents/bulc_<folder_name> and starting the simulation. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sim_preflight/sim_start siblings, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative path and the condition that selects it ('When the app lists sim_preflight / sim_start (BULC 0.90+), prefer sim_preflight → user confirmation → sim_start'), and gives the fallback when those tools don't exist. It also states prerequisites (fix validation errors first; get user go-ahead per GEN-016) and a scoping rule for repeated use (new folder_name per scenario, GEN-019).

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