create_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an 'empty' model and returns info including model_id, but does not mention whether the model is persisted, whether it participates in transactions (siblings like begin_transaction exist), or any side effects like overwriting existing models. This is a significant gap for a creation operation, leaving agents uncertain about the model's lifecycle or state.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and parameter constraints. There is no redundant phrasing or repetition of the tool name. It efficiently conveys the essential information without excess, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value; it does mention 'Returns the new model info including its model_id,' which is helpful. However, it does not clarify what 'code' means, whether the model is saved to disk, or how this interacts with transactions (given the transaction siblings). These gaps make the definition incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without making assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'kind' and 'dbms' (including defaults and examples), but provides no explanation for 'code' or 'name'. While 'name' is intuitively the model's name, 'code' is left unexplained. This partial coverage helps but does not fully clarify all parameters, so a score of 3 reflects the partial compensation.

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's action ('create a new empty model') with a specific resource (model) and explicitly enumerates the valid values for 'kind' (PDM, CDM, LDM). It also clarifies the optional 'dbms' for PDM. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like open_model, delete_table, or convert_cdm_to_pdm, which operate on existing models or other objects.

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 the tool is for creating a new model, and the context is clear from the name and sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus an alternative (e.g., 'use open_model to load an existing model'). It gives parameter-level guidance for dbms but no exclusionary conditions. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about alternatives, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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