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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the old id continues to work, any commons dedication remains valid, and only the listing moves to the successor. It also adds an ownership requirement. This significantly clarifies the side effects of the operation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes either to the operation's effect or its constraints.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: what the operation does, the ownership prerequisite, and the behavioral effects. Nothing necessary for correct use is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines each parameter clearly. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the relationship between old and new, the fact that the old id remains active, and the ownership requirement, which goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 a specific verb ('Mark an old version... as replaced by a newer one') and a clear resource ('model'), and it distinguishes the operation from siblings like delete_model or create_model by explaining the effect on listing while the old id keeps working. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when replacing an old model version with a newer one, and it provides a key prerequisite ('Both models must be yours'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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