create_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses creation/build intent, the scale mutual-exclusivity rule, feature structure, style lookup via list_capabilities, and that it returns a build summary plus analysis with fixes, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, permissions, or side effects of creating/building.

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 and front-loaded: creation intent, bbox format, scale constraint, mode options, feature shape, and return value all appear without filler. Every sentence adds usable 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?

The output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and it does mention the build summary and analysis. But for an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema descriptions, missing semantics for roughly half the parameters make it incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0% for 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains bbox format, the scale_m_per_mm/long_side_mm exclusivity, mode values, and feature shape, but leaves name, base_mm, printer, overwrite, z_exaggeration, and tactile_profile largely or entirely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create and build a model.' It clearly distinguishes creation from later updates, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as update_model or analyze_model.

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?

Usage constraints are stated: give exactly one of scale_m_per_mm or long_side_mm, and mode is terrain or flat. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_model, create_sampler, or check_print.

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