rca_model_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly labels it as a non-read, non-destructive creation. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors such as authorization requirements, consequences of duplicate names, or rate limits, which would add value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and structured with a family list, Args, and Returns sections. It is concise, using short lines and minimal redundancy. The only minor inefficiency is that the 'Args' line essentially repeats the schema's param name.

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 creation tool with complex nesting (ModelCreateInput), the description omits details like required fields apart from name and family, default values, validation rules, or error handling. It does not mention that the token is required. The output schema is noted as a JSON string with model_id, which suffices, but overall the description leaves knowledge gaps.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden. It lists ModelCreateInput fields (name, family, description, config, tags, version) and enumerates model families, but does not explain constraints like maxLength, required fields (token is not mentioned in description but is required in schema), or family-specific config expectations. This adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 'Register a new RCA model spec in the registry.' It lists model families and differentiates from sibling tools like rca_model_list (list), rca_model_update_status (update), rca_model_validate (validate), rca_model_delete (delete), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for creating a new model but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like rca_graph_create or rca_guide_ingest. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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