delete alias

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

Annotations establish that this tool is destructive and not read-only; the description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: API-key scope (aliases:write), role restrictions (OWNER/ADMIN only, 403), not-found behavior (404 when the id is not in the workspace), the fact that users of the alias will break, and that the action is audited with the model it pointed at. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, consequence, endpoint, scope, return value, permission error, not-found error, and audit trail. The most decision-relevant behavior is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description fully compensates: it states the success response, error cases, required permissions, workspace behavior, and audit side effect. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke or reason about this tool is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema already fully describes it including the important caveat that it is the alias id from GET /v1/aliases, not its name. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the endpoint, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove a model alias') and immediately adds the key semantic distinction ('cutover step, not cleanup'), so an agent can tell it apart from alias creation, listing, and general cleanup operations. The HTTP method and endpoint reinforce the action.

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 explicitly says this is a cutover step rather than cleanup and warns that requests still using the alias will fail afterward. It gives clear context for when to call it, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative for non-cutover cleanup.

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