Perplexity: Model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered structurally. The description usefully adds the dual read/set behavior and the routing bypass, but does not explain the consequences of setting the model, whether the change persists, or which label values are valid.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the read/set discriminator follows immediately.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could go slightly further on what a read returns or how model labels are supplied, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by explaining that omitting the optional 'name' triggers the read behavior rather than being an incidental optional field. That meaning is not captured by the schema's bare 'Model label to select' text.

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 verb pair (read/set) and resource (the app's model) and adds the meaningful qualifier 'bypassing routing'. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling perplexity_models, so an agent must infer the difference between selecting a model and listing available models.

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?

'Omit name to read it' gives an explicit condition that selects the read path versus the set path, which is genuinely actionable guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. perplexity_models, perplexity_status) or stating when setting the model is appropriate versus not.

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