lira_create_model

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose title constraints, model_type semantics, and optional save-as behavior. However, it does not say whether creating a model replaces the active model, what state or permissions are required, or what other side effects occur.

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 front-loaded with the action and then organized into parameter-specific notes with no filler. The model_type enumeration is necessary because the schema provides no enum or parameter descriptions.

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 covers return values, so omitting return-format details is acceptable. Still, for a create/mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions, the undocumented 'description' parameter and unspecified active-model side effects leave material 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains model_type values 1-5 in detail, title length and forbidden characters, and save_as as an optional .lir path, but it never documents the 'description' parameter.

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 opening 'Create an empty model' gives a specific verb and resource, and 'empty' distinguishes it from sibling open/import tools such as lira_open_model and lira_import_text_model. The scope is unambiguous.

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 never says when to choose this tool over lira_import_text_model, lira_open_model, or other model-setup siblings, nor does it state prerequisites. The parameter notes are specification details, not usage guidance.

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