delete_model_group

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating that the operation cascades to models, simulations, and associated data, and that it is permanent and cannot be undone. This gives the agent critical context about the full impact of the operation.

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 two short sentences and immediately communicates the action, scope, and irreversibility. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted 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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description fully covers the key aspects: what is deleted, the cascading scope, and permanence. No additional context is needed for safe invocation.

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 schema already describes the only parameter (model_group_id) as 'UUID of the model group to delete', so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, giving the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Delete a model group') and specifies the resource and scope ('all its models, simulations, and associated data'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_portfolio or delete_scenario by naming the exact resource type and its contents.

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 context implies this tool is for permanently removing a model group, and the name matches the resource. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied by the resource type rather than stated.

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