delete_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like the precondition that the file must exist and the return value (deleted_path), but it does not warn about the irreversible nature of deletion, error behavior if the file is missing, or any permission requirements. The description is not contradictory to any annotations (there are none), but it leaves room for more transparency.

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 well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections, and every sentence provides useful information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters, with no filler or repetition. The format makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema-like description in the Returns section, the description covers the essential aspects: action, precondition, input parameters, and return value. It lacks detailed error handling or edge-case behavior, but for a straightforward delete operation, this is nearly complete. The sibling context does not require additional clarification.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'name' as the file name, 'workspace' with its default directory, and 'ctx' for logging. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, especially clarifying the workspace default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('an OpenSCAD model file from the workspace'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_model, create_model, and list_models by focusing on deletion, which is a unique 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 states a key precondition ('The file must exist') and what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_model or clear_cache. There is no mention of scenarios where deletion should be avoided, so guidance is implied rather than thorough.

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