declare_foundation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the structure of the 'provides' parameter and visibility options, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing foundations on the same model. This leaves significant gaps for a write operation.

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, with three sentences and an inline code example. It packs useful information without excess. The structure is front-loaded with purpose and expands with details. The example could be slightly more integrated, but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 3 required, output schema present), the description covers the core concept well but omits discussion of the 'server_version' parameter and prerequisites (e.g., model must exist). It also does not outline the output or next steps. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed, but other gaps remain.

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 75% with three of four parameters described. The description adds value for 'provides' (example dict and explanation of capability) and 'visibility' (options), but it does not address the 'server_version' parameter, which is required and lacks schema documentation. Overall, the description provides moderate added meaning beyond the schema.

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 marks a model as a shared foundation that advertises providable controls. It explains the concept of a foundation with examples, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like attach_foundation, which reduces clarity slightly.

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 when to use the tool (to share controls), but it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that the tool should be used before attach_foundation or that the model must already exist. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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