create_model_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the output (launchd plist or systemd unit) and parameters, but does not disclose where files are saved, whether existing files are overwritten, or required permissions.

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 efficiently structured: a clear summary sentence, followed by platform details, then a well-formatted argument list. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers generation purpose, parameter roles, and integration with swap_model. Minor omission: no mention of output file location or naming convention.

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 0%, yet the description provides detailed docstring-style explanations for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Short alias for the model', 'Absolute path to the GGUF model file'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Generate a new service config for a llama-server model' and mentions creating platform-specific service files for use with swap_model. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swap_model (which activates) and list_models (which queries).

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?

It states the configs are for use with swap_model, providing contextual guidance on when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives for cases where configs already exist.

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