delete_submodel_ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what happens if the reference does not exist, or whether the submodel itself is affected. No side effects, error conditions, or authorization requirements are mentioned.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a useful HTTP endpoint reference. No redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 delete operation with a fully described schema and an explicit HTTP mapping, the description is largely complete. It distinguishes 'reference' from the actual submodel, and the schema covers the parameters. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that the underlying submodel is not deleted, but this is reasonably implied by 'reference' and the sibling tool 'delete_submodel'.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the HTTP endpoint mapping, which indirectly clarifies how shell_id and submodel_id are used, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Host and encode are already adequately described in the schema.

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 ('Deletes a specific submodel reference') and the target resource ('from a Shell'), and the HTTP endpoint further distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_submodel. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_submodel or create_submodel_ref. It lacks any context about prerequisites, when not to use, or which scenarios call for this operation. The only hint is the implicit differentiation in the name and description.

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