new_model

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description earns credit by specifying exactly what is destroyed: unsaved changes to the currently open model are lost. That is concrete, non-obvious data-loss context beyond the annotation, though there is no mention of undo, recovery, or whether the discard is immediate.

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 destructive warning is front-loaded in the second sentence, and the Args block is tight. The 16-value units enumeration is long but necessary given the missing enum, so it earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With one optional parameter defaulting to kN_m_C, the description covers the side effect, the prerequisite, and the valid values, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the schema has no enum for units, so the description carries the full burden. It enumerates all 16 valid unit strings and notes the parameter controls present units, adding substantial meaning the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a new blank model') plus the key side effect ('replacing the model currently open'). It clearly separates the tool from siblings like open_model and save_model by implication, though it never names them outright.

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?

Gives a clear condition ('replacing the model currently open') and an actionable prerequisite ('save it first if they matter'), which routes the agent to save_model when needed. It does not explicitly say when to prefer open_model instead of starting blank, so the alternative is left to inference.

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