unregister_model

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description earns credit for clarifying what is NOT destroyed (weights and configuration remain on disk), which meaningfully bounds the destruction. It stops short of saying whether the action is reversible or that unregistering requires re-registration to restore catalog visibility.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key preservation guarantee is stated immediately after the action.

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?

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential risk profile. It could do slightly more by pointing at how to restore a registration or clarifying that reassembly of state is possible via register_model.

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 100%, with both 'slug' and 'confirm' fully documented including the plan-vs-execute semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a local registration') and adds a scoping contrast ('preserving all original weights and configuration') that implicitly separates it from remove_model. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the preservation clause hints this is the non-destructive to the catalog option versus remove_model, but the description never states when to choose this over the alternatives or any prerequisites.

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