models_deleteDelete a configured model; deletion is blocked if active project grants exist, and cluster-managed models cannot be deleted via this route.
Deletes only the configured model. Deletion is blocked while it has active project grants. Cluster-managed configured models cannot be deleted through this route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| configuredModelID | Yes | ||
| modelProviderConfigID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing two concrete failure modes (active project grants block deletion; cluster-managed models are out of scope), which is genuinely useful behavioral context.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the constraints. No filler or repetition.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope and blocking conditions well, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. It stops short of describing the success response or required permissions/authentication, 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for three required ID parameters, each only carrying a regex pattern. The description offers no information about what configuredModelID, modelProviderConfigID, or orgID refer to or how they relate, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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: 'Deletes only the configured model.' The word 'only' plus the two scope caveats sharpen it against siblings like model_providers_delete, models_update, or machines_delete, though it never names the neighboring model tools explicitly.
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?
Provides real preconditions — deletion is blocked with active project grants, and cluster-managed configured models cannot be deleted via this route — which tell the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, point to alternatives (e.g. how to delete a cluster-managed model) or contrast with models_update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.