Create/launch new EV assessment

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context—such as whether the launch occurs immediately, how long it takes, or what side effects to expect—so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, though the brevity also contributes to missing critical details.

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 an opaque payload, absent output schema, and no additional guidance, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no way to construct a valid payload or interpret the response, making this tool risky to invoke.

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 only parameter 'payload' is an opaque object with schema coverage 0%, meaning no property definitions are provided. The description offers zero guidance on what the payload should contain, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 action (create) and resource (new launched Exposure Validation assessment), distinguishing it from scheduled or template creation tools via the word 'launched'. It is specific but could be more explicit about immediate execution versus scheduling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings like cymulate_ev_scheduled_create or cymulate_ev_templates_create. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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