delete-trained-model-version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it merely restates the operation without explaining side effects, permanence, permissions, or whether the version is soft-deleted. It offers no value beyond the tool name itself.

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 with no filler words. Every word conveys meaning, and it is efficiently structured for a simple operation, even though the content is minimal.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits critical context for a destructive operation, such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or prerequisites. This is inadequate for confident use without external information.

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 schema has one parameter (version_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no help in understanding what version_id refers to or how to obtain it.

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 (delete) and the target (trained model version), using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on other entities (e.g., delete-policy, delete-runbook).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or alternatives. The description does not mention potential consequences (e.g., irreversibility, impact on dependent resources) or why one would choose this over other delete tools.

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