Create World Model

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, so the create action is consistent. The description adds that a world model is built from a source agent and that the world_model_id is returned, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or asynchronous behavior. This adds some context but not extensive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, includes a clarifying parenthetical and return value. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter create tool with annotations present, the description covers the essential aspects: action, source, and return. It lacks some context about prerequisites or how this tool fits with other world-model sibling tools, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (source_agent_id and name). The description's phrase 'simulation clone' adds slight conceptual context but no new parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 (world model), the source (from a source agent), and the return value (world_model_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lyzr_world_model_get or lyzr_world_model_update by being the creation operation.

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 its usage (when you need to create a world model) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like lyzr_clone_agent or lyzr_world_model_create_evaluation_run. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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