delete_threat_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses: destructive nature, permanent, cascading effects on related entities (controls, assertions, findings, attestations, tag/reliance memberships), invalidation of reliance edges from other models, and downstream posture impact. It also states the return shape. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

One paragraph, front-loaded with the critical fact ('Destructive and permanent'), then cascading impacts. Every sentence contributes concrete information: what is deleted, why it matters (posture impact), how to safely proceed, and what to expect in return. Slightly dense but efficiently organized.

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 destructive complexity and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates destroyed entities, downstream effects (reliance edges), safety suggestion, and return shape. The only gap is the undocumented server_version parameter — its role is unclear. Still, for a destructive tool among ~120 siblings, this is above the bar.

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 model_id (the primary target) adequately mid-description, but server_version is undocumented in both schema and description. However, given that many MCP delete-style tools have an implicit server_version parameter and the description doesn't mislead, it's a minor gap. The description adds context about what happens to the deleted object's relationships, which helps with model understanding.

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?

Uses a specific verb+object ('Delete a threat model and all associated data') that clearly distinguishes it from the 120+ sibling tools (which include reads like get_threat_model, mutations like rename_threat_model or delete_reliance). The named scope (model + every version/controls/assertions/findings/attestations) sharply separates it from delete_assertion, delete_control, and delete_group. Zero ambiguity about what entity this tool deletes.

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?

Explicitly warns 'Destructive and permanent — cannot be undone' and instructs to 'Confirm intent before calling.' It gives a concrete safe alternative — use export_report with format='archive' to keep a copy first — and names the exact tool to call. This is textbook usage guidance.

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