create_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a creation/mutation operation ('create'), but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or what happens if the model already exists. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies system state, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, but it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for a tool that creates database models. It lacks details on what the model does, how it's used, or what the result looks like. Sibling tools suggest a development context, but the description doesn't leverage this, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('app_id' and 'table_name'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'Создать модель для работы с БД' (Create a model for working with the database) states a clear verb ('create') and resource ('model'), but it's vague about what type of model or what 'working with the database' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_app_structure' or 'create_ui_component' by focusing on database models, but lacks specificity on the model's purpose or scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during app development), or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'create_app_structure' or 'create_plugin_structure' suggest related creation tasks, but no explicit comparison or usage scenarios are given.

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