model_files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write-capable tool with destructive operations. The description adds the scope of files (model-level) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, whether uploads overwrite existing files, or any permission requirements. It neither contradicts nor richly extends the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured and concise. It opens with a clear verb+resource statement, provides a brief explanatory line, then presents operations as a bulleted list. The Returns section is useful. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding functionality.

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 the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, operations, and a return summary. It could add a note about permission requirements or error handling, but the schema and annotations fill in most gaps. For a multi-action file management tool, this is a strong description.

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% and each parameter has a description (action enum, file_id, model_id, file_path, save_path). The description lists operations but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema—e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between actions and required params beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is correct since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 manages file attachments for asset models, with a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('asset models'). It lists four distinct operations (upload, list, download, delete), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to model-level attachments, which is distinct from asset_files or license_files.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for files that apply to all assets of a model (documentation, manuals, datasheets, images). It implies these are model-level attachments, differentiating from asset-level or license-level files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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