make_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions delegation to a command, leaving out critical details: whether files are overwritten, what directory they land in, side effects (e.g., triggering events), or required project state. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's full impact.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose ('Scaffold a new model file') and providing immediate implementation context. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and any mention of file placement or overwrite policy. For a file-generation tool with zero annotations, the agent needs more context to safely invoke it.

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 100% and both parameters ('name' and 'softDeletes') have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but given the schema's self-sufficiency, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 scaffolds a new model file using a specific verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('model file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'make' tools (e.g., make_factory, make_migration) by explicitly referencing model generation and delegating to a known command (`d1-eloquent make:model`).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like list_models or read_model serve different needs, but the description omits any contextual advice on prerequisites, overwrite behavior, or typical workflow placement. The purpose is implied but not explicitly framed with usage boundaries.

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