Update Generation Model

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the update changes the model to point to a different LLM 'from the registry' and implies that the new model must come from list_available_llms. This is sufficient for a simple update operation, though it does not discuss error cases or validation behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: an opening summary sentence, a practical pointer to a related tool, and a clean Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter update tool that has an output schema and good annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, the source of valid values, and explains both parameters. No further behavioral or return-value detail is needed given the low complexity and available structured metadata.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The Args section clearly explains both parameters: 'name' is the registered generation model to update, and 'model_name' is the new LLM from the registry. This adds real meaning beyond the bare property names, even if it does not specify value formats.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Change the LLM that a registered generation model points to.' This precisely identifies the verb (change/update), the resource (generation model), and the specific attribute being modified (LLM). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like register_generation_model, get_generation_model, and delete_generation_model.

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 a clear usage hint: 'Use list_available_llms to see available LLMs.' This guides the agent to a prerequisite/related tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative update scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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