create_simulation_run

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which the description aligns with by stating it 'creates' something. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it mentions that successful responses include the new entity and that events can be viewed via other tools. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized at three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second provides context about webhooks and simulations, and the third explains the response and related tools. There's minimal redundancy, and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core action.

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 has one parameter with full schema coverage, non-destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of providing context. It explains the tool's role in webhook testing, mentions the response format, and references related tools for event viewing. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating prerequisites (e.g., simulation must exist) or error scenarios, which would help an agent use it correctly.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'simulationId' clearly documented as 'Paddle ID of the simulation to create a run for.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 the tool 'creates a new simulation run for a simulation in Paddle' and explains its purpose in the context of webhook testing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_simulation' (which creates the simulation itself) and 'get_simulation_run' (which retrieves one). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_simulation_runs' or 'replay_simulation_run_event', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 implies usage context by mentioning that simulation runs are used 'once the simulation has been configured' and for sending test webhook events. It suggests alternatives like 'list_simulations_events' or 'get_simulation_run' for viewing events, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives or other siblings like 'create_simulation'. Guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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