rastermoves_models

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a retained background job, requires polling, has a base write effect flag, and may have conditional inference/download effects. It does not detail what is destroyed or list permission prerequisites, but it adds substantive information beyond the annotations.

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 three compact sentences and front-loads the primary purpose before operational details. There is little waste, though the phrase 'retain licence metadata' could be clearer about whether metadata is stored, returned, or both.

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 description covers the async job model, polling target, and effect flags, which are important for this destructive background operation. It remains incomplete regarding how to choose between this and sibling model tools, and it does not explain most of the nested argument parameters, though the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 50%, and the nested arguments fields (tag, query, scale, cache_dir, architecture) have no descriptions. The description only maps loosely to the permissions effect flags by mentioning base write and conditional inference/download effects, leaving most parameter meaning unexplained beyond the schema.

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: search locally available model manifests and retain licence metadata. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby model-related siblings such as rastermoves_plan_all_models or stemlab_models.

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?

It gives procedural usage guidance after invocation by saying to poll danceflow_job_status and inspect danceflow_component for conditional effects. However, it does not state when this tool should be chosen over sibling search, planning, or download tools, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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