models_delete

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: deletion is soft, models go to trash, remain restorable, and weights/training history/exports are only removed on permanent deletion. This meaningfully clarifies the destructiveHint=true annotation and alerts an agent to the reversible nature.

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?

A single focused sentence front-loads the operation and reference formats, then appends the consequential trash/restore behavior. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with complete schema descriptions and no output schema requirement, the description covers how to identify the model, the required project context for slugs, and the post-deletion state. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description largely restates the model parameter's ref formats and the project requirement. It reinforces the parameter semantics but does not add new details beyond the input schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 pair, 'Soft-delete a model', and spells out the three accepted reference forms. It clearly differentiates this delete operation from read-only siblings like models_get/models_list and makes the soft-delete semantics immediately apparent.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool is applicable: deleting a model by standard refs, and notes the project requirement for slugs. It does not name an alternative or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the reference formats and trash behavior provide enough guidance for selection.

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