models-remove_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the bridging behavior for task definitions and cascading for non-task definitions, as well as the alias. It does not cover error states or prerequisites, but the core behavioral traits are well explained.

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 very concise, with two well-structured sentences. The main action is front-loaded, followed by additional behavioral details. No unnecessary information.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral differences and includes the alias. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or required model state (e.g., must be draft). Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a minor 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., dry_run and repoint_inbound are clearly explained in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool removes a plan item definition from a draft model, and distinguishes between task and non-task definitions with specific behavioral details (bridging sentries vs cascading). It also mentions the alias, which avoids confusion with siblings like models-delete_definition.

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 explains the main use case and differentiates behavior for task vs non-task definitions, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives. However, the context of 'draft model' and the sibling list (including the alias) make the usage clear.

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