delete_threat_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral transparency. It states the destructive and permanent nature, enumerates what is removed (versions, controls, assertions, findings, attestations, memberships), discloses side effects on reliance edges and consumer posture, and describes the return value.

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 succinct and well-structured: an opening warning, a detailed but organized list of deletion effects, and a practical recommendation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description covers key operational context: what gets deleted, cascading effects on reliance, backup guidance, and the return payload. The only gap is server_version, which is a schema documentation issue rather than a description deficiency.

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 coverage is only 50% (model_id has a description, server_version does not). The description does not elaborate on either parameter, only mentioning model_id in the return value format. It fails to compensate for the missing server_version semantics.

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') with a clear resource ('a threat model and all associated data'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_reliance or export_threat_model_archive. The scope of deletion is explicit, covering the model and all associated data.

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 explicitly warns to confirm intent before calling and directs users to export_threat_model_archive when a copy is needed before deletion. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names a specific alternative tool.

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