create_spw_from_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the default field set and the condition for engineering fields, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as whether an existing .spw file is overwritten, permission requirements, or the effect of omitting output_path.

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 the main action front-loaded and a clear conditions sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough. It covers defaults and engineering conditions but leaves parameter semantics, output behavior, and return value unaddressed, making it difficult for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional information.

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. It indirectly explains the roles of 'columns' and 'include_engineering' via 'mapped by columns and opted in,' but six other parameters (style_id, document_id, layout_name, output_path, include_root, column_preset) receive no explanation. The description adds only minimal parameter meaning.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('.spw specification document'), and the source ('current model tree'). It also notes the default fields written, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like create_specification that may target different output formats or scopes.

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 specifying the default behavior and the condition under which engineering fields are included, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_specification or preview_spw_generation. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage to inference.

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