create_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic create/update functionality without explaining side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. Key behaviors like handling duplicate names or missing model_id are omitted.

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 two concise sentences with a bullet list. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides structured usage patterns.

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 output schema exists, so the description does not need to cover return values. For a dual-mode tool with 4 parameters, the description adequately explains parameter roles. It lacks edge cases (e.g., what if model_id is invalid) but is sufficient for typical use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify that project_id and name are for creation, and model_id is for update. However, it does not explain constraints (e.g., name format) or whether description is ignored on update. The connection is partial.

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 can create or update a model, specifying the exact resource and actions. It distinguishes between two use cases (create vs update), which is specific and unambiguous. Among sibling tools like create_model_version, this tool is uniquely identified as operating on 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?

The description explicitly provides when to use the tool: create with project_id and name, update with model_id plus fields. It gives clear context for each mode. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the sibling list implies other tools for different operations.

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