declare_foundation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is mutating, records the model as a foundation, stores advertised controls, and emphasizes that a capability always advertises a control, never an objective. It stops short of covering permissions or reversibility, but core side effects are transparent.

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 organized into three focused paragraphs, each serving a purpose: what the tool does, what a foundation is, and how to structure provides entries. It is slightly longer than strictly needed but every sentence contributes valuable context; no redundancy.

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 complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, mutation side effects, provides structure, and relationship to attach tools. However, it omits any semantics for the required 'server_version' parameter, which is also undescribed in the schema, leaving a small but notable gap.

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 input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds significant semantics for the 'provides' parameter, including a concrete example and a rule about controls vs objectives. This goes beyond schema-only information and helps correctly construct the array.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Mark a model as a shared foundation that advertises providable controls.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like propose_attach_foundation/attach_foundation by stating this tool records the foundation itself, while other models later delegate to it.

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 the tool's role as a prerequisite for delegation, pointing to propose_attach_foundation/attach_foundation as related next steps. It also clarifies what constitutes a foundation and provides input format guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with all alternatives.

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