sigma_create_data_model

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the spec must include certain required fields, which is a validation behavior. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like failure modes, idempotency, or return behavior beyond what the output schema may provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with a complex nested spec, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the structure of pages/elements, how to obtain folderId/schemaVersion, or any prerequisites. Even though output schema exists, the input requirements are underspecified.

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 is opaque (single spec object, 0% description coverage). The description compensates by listing required fields: name, folderId, schemaVersion, and pages with elements. This is critical but lacks details about types or structure.

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 data model') and the input format ('from a JSON code representation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_update_data_model and sigma_get_data_model by specifying creation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies use for creating a new data model, but doesn't explicitly contrast with update or other creation tools. Sibling names provide context, but not within the description.

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