models_delete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond them: the delete is reversible (goes to trash), and weights, training history, and exports survive until permanent deletion. This materially refines how an agent should weigh the destructive hint, though it says nothing about permissions or required authorization.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and accepted refs before the reversibility detail. Every clause carries information; the only minor redundancy is restating the ref forms already in the schema.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: what is deleted, what survives, and that it is recoverable. Only authorization/permission requirements and any trash-restore path are left implicit, which is a small gap.

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% and the schema already documents both the model ref forms and the project requirement for slug refs, so the description largely repeats what is structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds no syntax examples beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

States a specific verb (soft-delete) plus the resource (model) and enumerates the three accepted reference forms inline. An agent can immediately tell this is a deletion of a model, not of a project, dataset, or deployment.

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 clarifies the accepted reference forms and that the action is a soft delete, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative (no permanent-delete sibling is named, and the relationship to models_get/models_list is unstated). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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