contentrain_model_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: changes are auto-committed to git and manual editing of .contentrain/ files is discouraged. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key caveat. Every word earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers scope ('model and its content/meta') and the critical behavior (git auto-commit). The confirmation requirement is already in the schema. Slightly more detail on consequences (e.g., irreversibility) would round it out, but it's essentially complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Model ID to delete', 'Must be true to confirm deletion'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a model and its content/meta'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like contentrain_content_delete (content only) and contentrain_model_save (save/create).

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 implies when to use by warning 'do NOT manually edit .contentrain/ files', suggesting this tool as the safe alternative to manual editing. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or exclusion of contexts (e.g., when to use contentrain_content_delete instead).

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