IvedaAI: Engine Model

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

The description adds some context beyond annotations by disclosing response JSON structure (status, truncated, timedOut) and file upload requirements. However, it does not elaborate on destructive consequences beyond the DELETE operation name, and the annotations already include destructiveHint=true.

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 well-organized into separate endpoint blocks with compact parameter lists. It front-loads the response note and each line conveys concrete operational information without unnecessary fluff. Suitable for a multi-endpoint 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?

While all endpoints and parameters are listed, the description does not explain what each operation returns beyond the generic status/truncated/timedOut note. Without an output schema, this leaves the agent uncertain about response payloads (e.g., what a successful 'List AI Models' returns). It is adequate for invocation but incomplete for understanding outcomes.

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 only provides generic descriptions for body, file, path, and query, but the tool description adds per-endpoint parameter lists (e.g., query: offset?:integer, path: engineModelId*:integer) with types and required markers. This significantly helps the agent understand exactly what parameters to provide for each operation.

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 explicitly names the resource ('Engine Model') and lists specific operations (List, Upload, Delete, Replace, Enable) with clear HTTP verbs and endpoints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by resource scope and action. The title 'IvedaAI: Engine Model' reinforces the purpose.

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 through endpoint names and the resource name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related ones (e.g., engine_profile, engine_object). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, despite sibling tools being present.

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