create_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the side effects (which files are created: fun_<name>.cpp, model_options.txt, modelinfo.txt, description.txt, Sim1.lsd), the naming constraint (must not exist or lie inside another model), and that an empty model compiles and runs without computing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the generated-file list, then the workflow. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the file enumeration and workflow step run somewhat long for a creation tool.

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 or annotations exist, but the description compensates by covering the created artifacts, naming constraints, and downstream workflow. A brief note on the return value or error behavior on name collision would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains `name` (the folder name, allowed characters, existence/nesting constraint) but says nothing about `title` or `description` parameters; description.txt is mentioned as a file but not linked to the `description` parameter.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new, empty model folder in the models folder') and enumerates exactly what files are generated. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling creation tools like copy_model or sa_create_design.

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 chains the next steps ('Then use edit_structure to add objects, parameters and variables, write_equations for the equations, set_saved if needed, and run_configuration'), naming the exact siblings and the order, so an agent knows this is only the first step of a pipeline.

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