Delimit Models

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

Although annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable action-level behavior: 'add'/'remove' write config while 'list'/'detect' are read-only. It also discloses the premium prerequisite and the exact unlicensed error behavior, exceeding what the annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects, Prerequisite). Every section carries distinct information with no fluff, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 the mixed read/write behavior, the action-dependent side effects, the premium gating, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what side effects to expect, and how licensing failures behave. No material gap remains.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and their roles. The description adds action-level side-effect context, but does not add new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb-resource pairing: 'View and configure AI models for multi-model deliberation.' It then explicitly contrasts itself with delimit_deliberate: 'this manages which models the panel can call,' making differentiation from the key sibling immediate and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (inventory providers, auto-detect keys, register/remove providers), explicit when-not-to-use scenarios (running deliberation, inspecting history), and points to the correct sibling tool. The sibling contrast sentence further reinforces routing.

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