mistral_delete_modelPermanently delete a fine-tuned Mistral model using its model ID to remove it when no longer needed.
Delete a fine-tuned model (permanent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes | Fine-tuned model ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes '(permanent)', which reinforces irreversibility beyond the hint flags, but adds nothing about auth requirements, cascade effects, or error behavior.
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 short sentence with the irreversible nature front-loaded in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and it is immediately scannable.
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 simple one-parameter destructive delete, annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents the parameter. The description is nearly complete; only the lack of any recovery/irreversibility detail and usage context keeps it from a 5.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Fine-tuned model ID to delete'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a fine-tuned model'), and the '(permanent)' qualifier sharpens the meaning. It is distinguishable from siblings like mistral_delete_file or mistral_delete_agent by name, but the description itself does no explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or caveats. An agent receives no context about how to obtain a valid fine-tuned model ID or when deletion is the appropriate action over simply ignoring the model.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.