rca_model_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses irreversibility, that existing results remain retrievable via rca_analysis_get_result, and that new analyses can no longer use this model_id. It also documents error behavior for confirm=false and for missing or non-owned models. This is exactly the operational context needed for a destructive tool.

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 well-organized into a warning, an alternative usage path, Args, and Returns. No sentence is wasted, and the critical irreversibility warning is front-loaded before the details.

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 deletion tool, the description covers prerequisites, postconditions, error cases, and return value. It also routes to the appropriate sibling for the non-destructive alternative, making it complete for correct invocation and decision-making.

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 Args section adds useful plain-language meaning to model_id and confirm, including the 'aborted' error when confirm is not true. It omits explicit descriptions of token and client_id, but the nested schema already provides clear descriptions for those fields, so the description still adds meaningful value beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a model from the registry and storage.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from rca_model_update_status by explaining that delete is irreversible and for when you no longer need the spec. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'delete is for when you're certain you won't need the spec again.' It also names the alternative, rca_model_update_status, for marking a model deprecated while keeping it available. It further specifies that confirm=true is required and explains the consequence for future analyses.

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