Delete BIM Model

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

Despite having annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanence ("cannot be undone"), 404 on repeat call, the constraint about revisions, and a detailed breakdown of common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes far beyond what annotations provide and gives the agent a rich understanding of failure modes and side effects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense and structured: action, constraint, pre-resolve instruction, permanence/undo, repeat call behavior, error taxonomy, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While long, every sentence provides operational value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3. It is not as terse as the calibration example, but it earns its length.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, prerequisites (confirm id via list/show), constraints (revisions block deletion), consequences (permanent, irreversible), idempotency behavior (404 on repeat), error conditions with HTTP statuses, and the exact API endpoint. This is a complete operational profile.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by instructing that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and to resolve it with a list tool first, effectively explaining how to obtain a valid value. This adds practical semantics not present in the schema's simple 'unique identifier' 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Delete a BIM Model from the system." and reinforces with "Permanently removes the BIM model." It clearly distinguishes from related sibling tools like delete_bim_model_revision and delete_bim_file by targeting the top-level BIM model resource.

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 tool provides explicit workflow guidance: "Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling" and "resolve it with the matching list tool first." It also defines a conditional constraint: "A BIM Model with revisions cannot be deleted." However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for deleting revisions, so the 'when-not' is implied rather than spelled out with a named sibling.

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