conduyt_workflow_simulate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it declares no messages sent, no tags applied, no side effects, and enumerates what the trace verifies (DNC/opt-out compliance, SMS/email provider readiness, condition evaluation). Only auth/permission prerequisites and rate limits are left unstated.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side-effect profile, then the checks performed, then the recommended moment of use. No filler; every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return value; 'returns a step-by-step trace of what WOULD happen' does enough to set expectations, though it doesn't detail trace fields or how failed checks are surfaced.

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 100%, including the stub-contact fallback when contactId is omitted, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's 'real or stub contact' phrase restates rather than extends that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (dry-run/simulate a saved automation against a contact) and explicitly scopes it as a no-side-effect preview, which cleanly separates it from the mutating siblings conduyt_publish_automation and conduyt_workflow_promote.

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 says to use it 'to verify a workflow does what you expect before publishing', giving a clear decision context. It does not name validate/promote/publish siblings directly, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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