create_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that '.nlogox' envelope is added automatically and warns about widget variable declarations. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing model) or other side effects.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and well-structured. Every sentence adds value, though some widget details could be condensed or moved to schema doc. Overall efficient for the complexity.

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 covers creating and loading but does not mention return values, error handling, or what happens with invalid code. Given the tool's complexity and many siblings, some completeness is missing.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value by explaining that 'code' can be just procedures or full .nlogox, and provides detailed examples and important caveats for 'widgets' parameter (e.g., not duplicating globals).

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 action ('Create a new NetLogo model from code and load it'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'open_model' and 'update_model', which are different operations.

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 usage for creating models from code but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_model' or 'download_comses_model'. No when-not guidance is provided.

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