Generate From Behavioural Model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is mutating and saves the model's next version, that it takes minutes and reports progress automatically, and it explains refusal codes and 404 behavior in detail.

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 purpose and precondition are front-loaded, and the later paragraphs focus on return states and refusal handling. It is dense and useful, though longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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 complex mutating generation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers when to call it, what state it requires, side effects, timing, return states, and refusals. The only minor omission is `server_version`, which is a schema field rather than the central interaction concern.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the description clarifies that `model_id` comes from a `get_behavioural_model` result with `generation_ready: true`. However, `server_version` is neither described in the schema nor mentioned in the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: generate the threat model of a model awaiting its first generation from its behavioural model. It explicitly distinguishes this first behavioural-model-based generation from `generate_threat_model`, whose `extracting`/`needs_answers` states precede 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?

It gives an explicit precondition: call this only once `get_behavioural_model` reports `generation_ready: true`, using its `model_id`. It also routes the agent away from this tool when the model is already generated, still asking questions, or being extracted, naming `get_behavioural_model` and `refine_threat_model` as alternatives.

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