Launch Advanced Scenarios assessment

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, but the description adds no additional context about side effects, asynchronous execution, required permissions, or potential external interactions. It simply states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the required assessment_id and an open-ended options object, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how to obtain the assessment ID, what options are available, or what the launch returns or how to monitor it. No output schema exists, so the description should provide more context to complete the operational picture.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for properties, and the tool description fails to explain the meaning of assessment_id or the options object. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. The options parameter is entirely ambiguous.

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 uses the specific verb 'Launch' with a clear resource ('previously-created Advanced Scenarios assessment'), distinguishing it from creation, listing, and result retrieval tools among siblings. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 usage through the action 'Launch' and the resource type, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_advanced_create_assessment or cymulate_advanced_get_assessment_result. No when-to-use or exclusions are stated.

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