create_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states 'Create a new data model' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure is front-loaded with the main action. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Args:' header might be unnecessary), but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces need to explain return values. However, for a creation tool with multiple parameters, more guidance on usage and error conditions would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: name, connection_id, configuration, identifier, and tracking_columns, including examples for configuration. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on format constraints or dependencies.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new data model in Polytomic', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_model' or 'delete_model' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_connection' or 'create_sync' in terms of resource type beyond naming.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_model' or 'create_connection'. The description lists parameters but doesn't indicate prerequisites, such as needing an existing connection. Usage context is implied by the tool name and parameter list but not explicitly stated.

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