eda_lib_3_dmodel_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value in the remark that modelFile may be a compressed package of multiple model files that EDA auto-extracts into multiple models, and the returns line clarifies the UUID output. However, for a mutation/create operation it does not disclose failure behavior, whether existing models are overwritten, or other side effects beyond the generic create semantics.

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 content is compact with no wasted prose, and the key multi-model behavior is present. However, the structure is a raw signature dump followed by brief prose and separate remarks/returns lines, creating redundancy between the signature's Promise<Array<string>|undefined> return type and the 'returns:' line. It is terse but somewhat jumbled rather than cleanly organized.

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 create tool with four real parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description conveys parameters, the multi-model extraction capability, and the return type, which is adequate for basic invocation. But it omits usage context versus the five siblings and error or failure scenarios, leaving an agent to guess at selection and edge-case behavior.

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?

Although the schema drives the args wrapper, its items are empty schemas ({}), so the description's embedded signature carries the real parameter documentation: positional order, libraryUuid as string, modelFile as Blob, classification's union type (ILIB_ClassificationIndex | Array<string>), and unit's concrete enum values. This adds genuine meaning that the empty schema items do not provide.

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 '创建 3D 模型' (create 3D model) and shows the full function signature with libraryUuid and modelFile parameters, making the purpose concrete and specific. The create action distinguishes it from the 3dmodel siblings (copy, delete, get, modify, search), and the remark about auto-extracting multiple models from a compressed package adds a distinguishing capability. However, the purpose is conveyed through a raw signature dump in a terse Chinese/English mix rather than a crafted statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (eda_lib_3_dmodel_copy/delete/get/modify/search) or any alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing library UUID, what kind of model files are supported, or conditions under which classification or unit should be supplied. All usage context is left to inference.

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