update_simulation

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It explains the None-leave-unchanged behavior and return value (confirmation, summary, warnings), but lacks details on side effects, atomicity, or prerequisites (e.g., model state). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Structured as a summary sentence followed by parameter list with clear formatting. Somewhat verbose with redundant 'None leaves it unchanged' phrasing, but overall well-organized and easy to parse.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, description covers parameter details well and mentions the context of a single simulation environment. Lacks behavioral constraints or error conditions, but output schema mitigates need to describe return format.

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 description compensates with detailed parameter meanings: title character/length limits, units for time and temperatures, and scope of relative humidity. Adds significant value beyond schema types.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update the simulation environment (scenario and ambient conditions)' and differentiates from sibling tools by noting that a model has a single simulation environment set at create_model, making this tool unique for modifying 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?

Explicitly advises that only provided parameters are changed and None leaves them unchanged, guiding proper usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like update_compartment or update_device, though the context of simulation environment vs. compartments is clear.

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