add_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'manually add' with no mention of idempotency, duplicate handling, required permissions, or side effects on existing models. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, leaving the agent guessing about edge cases.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose and usage condition. Every word adds value, with no redundant information or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with only two string parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and trigger condition. It does not address potential failure modes (e.g., provider not found, duplicate model name), but the low complexity and presence of output schema make this acceptable. One more sentence about duplicates or validation would push it to 5.

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 2 parameters (model_name, provider_id) with 0% description coverage. The description references both concepts in the sentence, giving the agent a clue about their roles, but it does not explicitly map parameter names to meanings, nor does it highlight that both are required. This partial compensation earns a 3, not lower.

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: manually add a model name as an available model for a provider. It specifies the resource (model) and the target (provider), and the parenthetical explains the exact scenario when this is needed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_models or add_provider.

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 states when to use the tool: when the provider's /v1/models API is unavailable. This implies the normal path is automatic discovery via that API, and this tool is the manual fallback. It clearly differentiates use cases without needing to list alternatives.

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