Delete CAD model

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the 'permanently' qualifier and specifies 'saved' models, which clarifies scope. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether related data is removed), permission requirements, or if deletion is undoable—the latter being partially covered by 'permanently' but still extra context would be useful.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler or repetition. Every word adds value: 'permanently' indicates irreversibility, 'saved' limits scope, and 'from this studio' clarifies the context. This is ideal conciseness.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention what happens after a successful deletion (e.g., return type, confirmation) or potential errors (e.g., non-existent model, insufficient permissions). The additions of 'permanently' and 'saved' help, but a bit more detail on consequences would increase completeness.

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 has one required parameter, modelId, with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explicitly explain what modelId represents or how to provide it. While the tool name and title strongly imply modelId is the identifier, the description fails to state this directly, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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: 'Permanently delete a saved CAD model from this studio.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('saved CAD model'), and the scope ('from this studio') distinguishes it from other model management tools like update_model or duplicate_model. The word 'permanently' adds critical disambiguation from any soft-delete behavior.

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 archiving or deactivating a model. It does not mention any prerequisites, confirmed-deletion workflows, or exclusions. Sibling tools like update_model exist, but the description says nothing about how to choose between them.

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