build_model

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): all-or-nothing atomicity, error reporting that names the failing item with stage and index, default connector sync/validation behavior, and the response doubling as an inspection. This is substantial value-add.

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 compact yet information-dense: four sentences cover the tool's scope, atomicity, error granularity, and default behaviors. No filler or repetition; each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the high complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description provides enough behavioral context: scope, ordering, defaults, error semantics, and the response's role as an inspection. The presence of an output schema obviates the need to explain return structure, and sibling tool names clarify the tool's niche.

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 schema has 100% parameter descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful ordering semantics (e.g., 'applied after stocks', 'applied first', 'applied last') that are not in the schema, enhancing understanding of how the component arrays interact.

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 creates and populates a model in one call, enumerating the component types (sim specs, stocks, auxiliaries, flows, connectors, modules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_model or add_stock, which handle individual steps.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies a batch alternative to incremental add tools, and the atomic all-or-nothing behavior provides contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over create_model plus add_* siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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