delete_threat_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action deletes the model and all associated data and is irreversible. This is good, though it could be more precise about what 'associated data' includes.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the purpose and critical warning.

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 it is a delete operation with an output schema (assumed), the description covers the essential behavior and irreversibility. However, it could mention prerequisites or effects on related entities like systems or tags.

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 50%, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain 'server_version' or provide format hints, failing to compensate for the missing description.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (threat model) and specifies the scope (all associated data). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools that delete individual components like assertions or controls.

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 implicitly suggests use when permanent removal is intended, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or prerequisites. The irreversibility warning is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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