Create simulation

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (mutation) and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it describes the creation of simulations, mentions the exposed 'Decay' knob, and characterizes the output behavior (e.g., 'drifting trails', 'advected smears'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) yet packs all essential information: purpose, type variants, a key parameter, and an alternative tool. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main simulation types and a key parameter but omits details about 'expose_controls' and 'parent_path'. Given 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete context for all five parameters.

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 60%, and the description explains the 'type', 'speed', and 'decay' parameters meaningfully. However, it does not cover 'expose_controls' or 'parent_path', which lack schema descriptions. The description adds value but not full compensation for the missing 40%.

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's purpose as building GPU simulations and lists the three types with distinct behavior (reaction_diffusion, slime, fluid). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool create_generative_art by noting alternative procedural techniques.

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 provides context for when to use each simulation type and explicitly directs users to create_generative_art for other techniques. While it does not list specific when-not scenarios, the guidance is clear and helpful.

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