ClockNext: add (enable) a model

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

Annotations mark this as a mutating, open-world, idempotent operation; the description adds meaning by explaining the catalog price-copy behavior, the $0-metering edge case with a returned warning/link, and that non-catalog models/providers cannot be added. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and no filler. Each sentence covers distinct behavior: enabling/metering, catalog pricing, $0 edge case, and catalog prerequisite.

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?

With a 2-param schema, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the full workflow: prerequisites, pricing behavior, return values (link + warning), and failure conditions. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with concrete examples and the modelId relationship. The description restates the catalog-id semantics but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Enable a model for the organisation so usage can be metered against it.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting the resulting modelId becomes valid in clocknext_record_usage/clocknext_verify_signal and appears in clocknext_list_models.

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 gives when-to-use context (enable for metering), a prerequisite ('check clocknext_list_models first'), and clear exclusions: only catalog models can be added, and you 'never set prices here', directing price-setting to the Models page. This explicitly routes to the right tool and away from alternatives.

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