replay_simulation_run_event

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that Paddle creates a new simulation run event entity for the replay, describes the response structure (including status fields like pending, success, failure, aborted), and provides debugging details (payload, request.body, response.body, response.statusCode). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs.

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. It starts with the core purpose, then provides usage context, behavioral details, and debugging information. While it's slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining the response structure and debugging fields). It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

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 (replaying events with debugging), the description provides comprehensive context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what happens during execution (creates new entity), and details the response structure for success/failure analysis. With no output schema, the description effectively compensates by documenting the response format. This is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 three parameters (simulationId, simulationRunId, simulationEventId) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('resend an event'), the resource ('simulation run event from Paddle'), and the mechanism ('using its ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_simulation_run' or 'replay_notification' by focusing on replaying individual events rather than creating new runs or replaying notifications.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to retest the sending of an individual event within a simulation run rather than creating a new simulation run and sending all events again.' This provides clear guidance on the alternative (creating a new simulation run) and the specific use case (retesting individual events).

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