eda_lib_simulation_model_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type (Promise resolving to UUID or undefined), the Ngspice-only model type, and the since-version availability remark. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens on failure.

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 dense and front-loaded with the signature, followed by a short Chinese summary, a version remark, and a return note. It is mostly efficient, though the Chinese one-liner and 'returns: UUID' partially restate what the signature already conveys.

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 mutating library operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough structural detail to construct the args array and understand the return value. It is not fully complete because it omits usage context, optional-field semantics, and behavioral caveats that an agent may need to invoke it correctly in a large sibling-tool family.

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?

The input schema only exposes a generic args array and windowId, so the description adds substantial meaning with the full TypeScript signature: parameter order, types, optionality, and the union between modelFile and modelData. It still stops short of explaining the intended values of modelName, modelCategory, modelPin, and classification.

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 gives the exact API signature and states '创建仿真模型' (create simulation model). It identifies a specific verb, resource, and method path (lib_SimulationModel.create), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling library create tools like eda_lib_cbb_create or eda_lib_device_create.

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 alternatives such as eda_lib_simulation_model_modify or other library creation tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or workflow hints; the only implied trigger is a request to create a simulation model.

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