mu_create_attribute

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about whether the declaration persists to disk, what happens on a duplicate attribute name, whether it depends on model state, or what is returned. Only the word "declare" hints at a mutation, with no disclosure of side effects or error conditions for a 4-parameter tool.

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 short sentence with the example parenthetically attached — front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the extreme terseness is part of why coverage is thin.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across four parameters, the description omits far too much: persistence semantics, dependency on work_dir/model_root, valid kind values, and duplicate-handling. An agent could construct the required name/kind but is blind on the remaining two parameters and on 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only illustrates one pairing (name="OpIndex", kind=integer). The other two parameters, work_dir and model_root, are never mentioned or distinguished, and the accepted values for "kind" are left to guesswork.

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?

"Declare a custom attribute on the MU class" gives a specific verb (declare/create) and resource (a named attribute on the MU class), and the example "(e.g. OpIndex, integer)" concretely illustrates what gets produced. It is clear what the tool makes, though the domain term "MU class" is left unexplained, so an agent without prior context cannot tell exactly what object is being extended.

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 statement of when this should be called versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the MU class must already exist or a model be open), and no note on ordering relative to sibling tools like method_create or model_open. The reader must infer that this is a setup/declaration step.

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