Create a new version of an existing Kaggle model by uploading files from a local folder. Specify the model instance and add version notes to track changes.
Create new model instance version from folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | ||
| instance_ref | Yes | ||
| version_notes | No | New version |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a version is created from a folder but does not disclose side effects, whether files are uploaded, whether an existing model instance is required, or whether the operation can overwrite existing versions.
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 a single eight-word sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices important operational details.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and two required parameters, the description leaves critical context unspecified. The agent cannot determine what response to expect, whether the model instance must already exist, or how version_notes behaves.
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% and every property description is empty. The prose clarifies 'folder' as the source and implies 'instance_ref' identifies the model instance, but 'version_notes' is completely unmentioned. This does not adequately compensate for three undocumented parameters.
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 ('Create') on a clear resource ('model instance version') with an input source ('from folder'). It is distinguishable from version-management siblings like delete_model_version and download_model_version, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_model_instance.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'from folder' implies the input source, but there is no mention of prerequisites such as an existing model instance or when a user should prefer create_model_version over create_model_instance/init_model_instance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.