add_model_to_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the tool 'Mutating' and explains the link semantics: does not move/copy, model stays independently editable. This is valuable behavioral disclosure. It doesn't cover error conditions or permissions, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and key semantics, and the second paragraph adds usage context and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and prerequisites. The output schema handles return values. The only notable omission is explaining server_version, but that is more a parameter-semantics issue. Overall, a complete description for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 67%: both system_id and model_id have descriptions, but server_version does not. The description provides context for the two main parameters by explaining the linking relationship, but it adds no meaning for server_version, leaving a gap. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the uncovered 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 description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a threat model to a system container as a member.' It clarifies the role (member) and distinguishes from related tools like add_model_to_tag or add_asset, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: 'Use to include a model in a system's portfolio-level risk and compliance reporting.' It also states prerequisites and references create_system and list_threat_models. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for related operations like moving or copying, though it implies exclusions by noting it 'does not move or copy.'

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