model_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the server retains no model between calls and that the operation replaces the active model, but it does not explain validation failure behavior, whether the previous model is recoverable, or any permission requirements.

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 concise sentences with no wasted language. The core replacement behavior is front-loaded, and the statelessness detail follows immediately as supporting context.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential replacement semantics and the stateless server model. It could be more complete by mentioning validation behavior or irreversibility, but it provides enough context for correct 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%, so the description must compensate for the single `model` parameter. It adds meaningful context by requiring a complete `/m:os` JSON model rather than a partial patch, but it does not document the model structure or how validation errors should be handled.

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 states a specific verb and resource: replace the active visual model. It also specifies the required payload format (`/m:os` JSON), which distinguishes it from model_create, model_validate, model_get, and model_export. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 by saying it replaces the active model with a complete updated model, which suggests full replacement rather than partial update. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus model_create or model_validate, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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