simulate_delay

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does signal the operation is a hypothetical projection with no real-world mutation, and it hints at the return subject (affected parts and products), but it never states whether results include quantities, timing, or propagation levels, nor any limits or permission requirements.

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 framing the scenario, with zero filler and the key variables (supplier, days, affected parts/products) all present.

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 two-parameter simulation with no output schema, the definition should explain what a result row means (stockout timing, shortage magnitude, affected product rollup) and whether the simulation cascades through the BOM. Those gaps matter for interpreting output even though the trigger is clear.

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 both parameters are undocumented structurally. The description partially compensates by mapping 'N days' to the days parameter as a shipment slip magnitude and by tying supplier_id to the supplier whose shipments slip, but it gives no format guidance for the supplier_id string (ID vs name) or bounds on days.

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 concretely frames a what-if slip simulation over a supplier's shipments and names the outcome set (parts and products that could run out). The verb is implied by 'What-if' rather than stated as 'simulate', but the resource and scope are unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like supplier_scorecard or supply_risks.

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 hypothetical framing implies this is for forward-looking disruption scenarios rather than reporting on existing risk, which is a useful implicit contrast with supply_risks. However, no sibling is named, no exclusion ('use X for actual current stockouts') is given, and no prerequisites or call sequencing guidance appears.

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