delete_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a model, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated syncs). The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe use.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy 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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameter but misses critical context like deletion implications, permissions, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with no safety annotations, more detail is warranted.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'id' by specifying it as 'The model ID to delete', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's minimal title 'Id'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain the ID or format requirements.

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') and resource ('a model from Polytomic'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_bulk_sync' or 'delete_connection' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal vs. soft delete), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the model ID from 'get_model' or 'list_models'), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if the model is active in a sync). The presence of sibling tools like 'delete_bulk_sync' and 'delete_connection' suggests a need for differentiation, but none is provided.

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