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

Beyond the annotations' mutation flags, the description adds significant behavior: models are immutable, changed models produce a new id, malformed nets are rejected with every validation reason at once, and the model remains private until licensed. It also explains ownership and sharing implications, which annotations cannot convey.

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 concise and front-loaded: core storage and identity behavior first, validation behavior second, and lifecycle/ownership context last. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers what to pass, what is returned, immutability, validation behavior, privacy, and the relevant cleanup licensing/deletion alternatives. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and understand its side effects.

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 schema only says 'the model JSON', while the description specifies the required JSON keys (name/places/transitions/arcs) and mentions validation behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantic detail without needing to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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 first sentence names the verb ('Store') and resource ('Petri-net model') and states the return value ('content id'). It further distinguishes the operation from lifecycle siblings by noting immutability and the one-id-per-model behavior.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' statement, but the description gives clear lifecycle context: the model is private until dedicated via sim_license_model and can be removed with sim_delete_model. This helps an agent see how this tool fits among siblings, though it doesn't state exclusions outright.

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