Delete Model

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add the operational context, which it does: the dependency failure when a serving is deployed, the preview-then-confirm gate, and the timeout recovery path via operation_status. That is substantial beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its blocker, then the confirm flow, then the operation_id rules. Four dense sentences, all earning their place; the operation_id guidance is slightly repetitive but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes needn't be described. For a destructive open-world operation, the guidance covers the confirmation gate, dependency failure, and retry semantics. It stops short of stating permission requirements or how workspace selection changes the target, which for a multi-tenant delete is a real residual 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains confirm (default false) and the reuse/new-operation semantics of operation_id thoroughly, but says nothing about registration_id (the only required parameter) or workspace scoping. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ("Delete a model registration") and immediately distinguishes it from a nearby sibling concern by noting it fails while a serving of that model is deployed — separating it from delete_serving. An agent can tell what this removes without opening the schema.

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 two-phase flow is spelled out explicitly: confirm=false (default) only previews, confirm=true performs the delete only after user agreement. It also names the alternative for checking state (operation_status) and prescribes retry behavior, leaving nothing to inference.

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