Declare Foundation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Mutating' and states that it 'records this model as a foundation and stores its advertised controls,' plus the downstream consequence that other models can then delegate. It also adds an important semantic rule: capabilities always advertise controls, never objectives. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 well organized: a one-line purpose, a concise mutation/effect paragraph, and an example-backed parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important semantic constraint is front-loaded.

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 description is largely complete for a mutating tool with an output schema: it explains the mutation, the relationship to delegation, the meaning of provides entries, and the foundation concept. The only notable gap is that the required server_version parameter is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and description, which an agent may need to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents model_id, provides, and visibility, while server_version has no description. The tool description adds real value for the provides parameter by giving a concrete example object and clarifying that each entry advertises one of this model's controls. It also emphasizes that capability entries represent proven controls, not objectives, which prevents misuse.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented statement: 'Mark a model as a shared foundation that advertises providable controls.' It clearly identifies the resource (a model), the operation (declaring/recording it as a foundation), and the purpose (advertising controls). It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by referencing propose_attach_foundation and attach_foundation as the follow-up delegation steps.

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 explains that declaring a foundation enables other models to delegate to it, and explicitly points to propose_attach_foundation and attach_foundation for that downstream step. It also clarifies what kind of model qualifies as a foundation via the shared-service examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the cross-tool guidance is strong.

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