step_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a state mutation but says nothing about whether stepping is blocking, whether it cooks/renders anything, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if stepping past the end of the timeline — all material for a simulation-mutating call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than being genuinely complete.

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 mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented required parameter, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what node_path should be or what state the simulation ends in after the call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The required node_path parameter is never mentioned at all, and "a number of frames" only loosely gestures at the steps parameter without clarifying whether it is frames, substeps, or a simulation-step count.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("advance the simulation") with a stated unit of work (frames), so an agent knows it is a time-stepping mutation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as reset_simulation or get_simulation_info, leaving the agent to infer that this is the incremental-advance counterpart to a reset.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus reset_simulation or cook_frame_range, and no mention of prerequisites such as having a loaded or previously reset simulation. The agent must guess at the ordering constraints on its own.

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