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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context about ownership requirements and the irrevocability of dedicating a model to the commons, which helps agents avoid destructive mistakes.

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?

Two concise, information-dense sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the refusal conditions are compactly itemized without wasted words.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations already declaring destructive behavior and a 100% schema-covered parameter, the description covers the essential usage boundary cases. It does not discuss post-deletion effects, but the destructive annotation and refusal conditions provide adequate 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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter, 'id', as the model id to delete. The description's ownership and refusal language adds context but not additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 states the specific operation ('Delete a model you created') and the resource (a model), clearly distinguishing it from create, get, or supersede tools. The ownership qualifier and refusal conditions make the purpose precise 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 clear context for when this tool applies and explicitly lists refusal conditions: curated catalog models, unowned models, and commons-dedicated models. It does not name sibling alternatives for those cases, but the guidance is still highly actionable.

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