Update Model

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers substantive disclosures: atomicity ('Atomically'), conditional gating ('if expected_version matches'), and the side effect of 'invalidating previous results.' The main gap is the failure mode when expected_version does not match (error vs. no-op), but the most critical mutation behaviors are transparently disclosed.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and atomicity qualifier are front-loaded, and every phrase — atomic, version-match condition, invalidation side effect — earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the headline behaviors but leaves real gaps: the result or error when expected_version mismatches, what 'previous results' actually refers to (renders, validation, exports), and routing guidance relative to siblings. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, which slightly mitigates the incompleteness.

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 clarifies expected_version's role as the gate for the update and implicitly identifies scad_code as the new code, but it says nothing about project_id or change_summary, which an agent still needs to understand to invoke the tool correctly. Only partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Atomically update code') on a specific resource, and adds the governing condition ('if expected_version matches'). The core purpose is unmistakable. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like create_project or finalize_model, though the version-gated semantics are distinctive.

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 offered on when to use update_model versus its siblings (create_project, finalize_model, restore_version, read_model). The version-match condition hints at a concurrency/edit scenario, but this is never stated explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from sibling names alone.

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