Adopt Model Into Study

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

The description discloses that without confirm it is a read-only preview, and with confirm it attaches to study history. It also states that adoption does not refit, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. Given annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, this adds useful context about the two-phase behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action (preview), and immediately follows with the conditional confirmation behavior. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the preview/attach duality and the non-refit behavior, but it omits the purpose of 'reason' and the meaning of 'provenance gaps', and does not clarify ownership or prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It only clarifies the 'confirm' parameter ('Set confirm only to attach it to study history'). It does not explain 'reason', 'study_id', or 'model_hash' beyond their names, leaving a significant gap for a tool with 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: preview an owned completed model and provenance gaps, then optionally attach it to study history via the confirm flag. The verb and resource are implicit but discernible ('attach it to study history'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by the unique action of adoption. It lacks an explicit 'adopt' verb but the intent is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does imply that without confirm it's a preview, but it doesn't mention any other tools or conditions for selection. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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