solver_enable_model_arm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP endpoint, the required kind=model and model_deployment_id, the secretless template requirement, and the important restriction that wider claims are rejected. It does not mention auth, idempotency, or response behavior, but the key constraints for using it correctly are disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The endpoint is front-loaded, and the critical constraint about secretless template values and rejected claims is immediately actionable.

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 core mechanics and a key limitation, but with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left without guidance on response/return behavior, prerequisites, or how this tool relates to the very similar-sounding solver_register_arm. It is adequate but not fully complete for safe selection and 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. It adds meaningful guidance by pointing to the catalog entry's arm_registration_template as the source of values, and warns that claims wider than the template are rejected. However, it does not individually explain display_name, capability_tags, data_class_grants, or cost_class beyond the schema's enum definitions.

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 action and resource: enabling a certification-backed model deployment as an arm. It also names the exact endpoint (POST /v1/arms with kind=model and model_deployment_id), which clearly distinguishes this from the more generic sibling solver_register_arm.

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 intended use is implied by the wording 'certification-backed model deployment' and the endpoint details, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over solver_register_arm or other sibling tools. It gives value-source guidance ('use the catalog entry's secretless arm_registration_template values') but not selection criteria.

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