speckle_model_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing effects. It states 'Create a new model', which implies a write operation, but does not mention permissions, idempotency, validation, or what happens on duplicate names. It does provide a hint about organization via discipline, but that's limited behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core concept and discipline organization but omits edge cases, permission requirements, or relationship to the parent project. Given the sibling tools and output schema provide some structure, the description is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps in behavioral and contextual detail.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description references 'discipline' as a key parameter ('organized by discipline'), adding semantic context beyond the schema's default value. However, it does not elaborate on project_id or description, though project_id is self-explanatory. This partial compensation warrants a 4.

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 action (create) and resource (new model within a Speckle project), and adds the organizing dimension 'by discipline' which gives context. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the verb 'create' plus 'model' is distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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 implies usage context (organizing by discipline) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like speckle_projects_create or speckle_models_list. It lacks exclusions or explicit prerequisites, so it's adequate but not fully guiding.

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