_mcp_update_base_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add key insight: 'pure, no network' indicates no network calls and a local operation. However, it fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires any state. For a tool that modifies project configuration, more behavioral context (e.g., does it overwrite files?) would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise—one sentence—and front-loaded with the core action. While it could benefit from more structure (e.g., separate sections), it delivers the essential message without verbosity. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 (three required parameters, modifies config, produces a diff) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate top-level context: it updates the config and outputs a diff, with no network. However, it omits details about error conditions, safety (e.g., does it validate inputs?), and the nature of the diff. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but leaves several gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'repo/revision', implying that 'new_repo' and 'new_revision' are the target fields, but it does not explain their format, constraints, or valid values. 'project_id' is not mentioned at all. This provides minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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's function: 'Update the base model repo/revision in the project config and produce a diff'. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('base model repo/revision'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the output ('diff') and the local nature ('pure, no network'). This leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where it would be inappropriate. Sibling tools like '_mcp_quantize_model' or '_mcp_merge_lora_weights' are not contrasted. The agent has no information about when to prefer this tool over others.

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