Edit model

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: changes are bundled as an undoable operation, steps execute sequentially, later steps can reference earlier creations, and unresolvable references cause rejection before any change is sent. This pre-validation guarantee ensures the edit never silently does nothing, which is valuable given no annotations are provided.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, batching guidance, and reference semantics without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information appears first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (24 action types) and lack of an output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects: ordering, batching, reference resolution, and failure prevention. It leaves detailed action-specific semantics to the schema enum, which is acceptable, but could benefit from a brief example or mention of how path/modelId scoping works.

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 describes path and modelId but leaves steps undocumented. The description compensates by explaining how step references work ('Switch' or 'Switch.out') and the resolution/rejection behavior, adding crucial semantics for constructing valid steps.

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 clearly states the tool applies one or more changes as a single undoable operation, identifying both the verb ('apply') and resource (changes to a model). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_model or delete_model, which handle different lifecycle operations.

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?

It advises batching all known changes into one call and explains that steps apply in order, establishing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, only implicitly distinguishing it from create/delete operations.

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