sim_add_spice_directive

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already informs the agent about destructiveness. The description adds that the directive is persisted for future runs, but does not disclose whether it appends or replaces existing directives, or what file/state is modified. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 that is direct and free of extraneous detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description does not explain the destructive side effects or how to integrate with simulation workflows. It is minimal but not entirely insufficient for a one-parameter tool.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'directive' with no description (0% coverage). The description merely repeats 'SPICE directive' without explaining valid syntax, constraints, or examples. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Persist' and resource 'SPICE directive', and specifies that it is used for future MCP simulation runs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sim_run_* which execute analyses rather than configure them.

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 the tool is used before running simulations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide any exclusions. It is not misleading, but the guidance is vague and underdeveloped.

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