run_simulations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by stating that the call returns the run with its ID and a shareable dashboard URL, and by implying the run is started asynchronously since progress must be polled via get_simulation_run. It says nothing about idempotency behavior, iteration limits, failure modes, or any permission requirements involved in starting a run.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the follow-up tool. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement or filler.

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 seven-parameter launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it starts, what it returns, and how to monitor it. The remaining gap is the undocumented idempotencyKey and any statement about run duration or expected errors, which keeps it short of complete.

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 57%, so the schema already explains assistantId, squadId, simulationIds, suiteIds, iterations and transport. The description only restates the mutual-exclusion shape ('simulations and/or suites against an assistant or squad'); it adds no guidance on idempotencyKey, the only parameter lacking any schema description, nor on how iterations interacts with the run.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Starts a simulation run') and states the target ('of simulations and/or suites against an assistant or squad'), which mirrors the schema's mutual-exclusion groups. It is immediately distinguishable from get_simulation_run and list_simulations, which read state rather than launch it.

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?

It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool (launching a batch run of existing simulations or suites) and explicitly routes the agent to get_simulation_run for progress polling. It does not, however, position it against siblings like create_simulation or list_simulations, nor state any prerequisites such as needing an existing assistant or squad ID.

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