model_metadata_propose

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the tool does not write, user confirms, each call replaces proposal, and warns not to invent trigger_tokens or write directly. Provides key list and behavioral constraints.

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?

Well-structured with purpose, behavior, guidelines, and key list. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 proposal tool with no output schema, description fully covers what happens: user sees proposed vs current, edits, confirms without writing. No missing info for correct invocation.

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 50%, description compensates by detailing the 'fields' object keys and advising to include only confident fields. Adds meaning beyond schema, though 'name' and 'category' lack extra context.

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?

Description clearly states the tool proposes cleaned embedded metadata into a diff-review window, specifying it does NOT write the file. It distinguishes from siblings like model_metadata_fetch_civitai and model_metadata_read by emphasizing the proposal-only nature and replacement behavior.

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?

Explicitly says when to call: 'whenever you have a proposal OR the user asks you to revise one'. Warns each call replaces the proposal, instructs to send full field set and only confident fields. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but context is clear.

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