delete_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, the recovery path (the model must be re-pulled), and the exact guard conditions requiring force. It still leaves open what happens if provider is omitted and whether the operation is synchronous.

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?

Three tight clauses with the endpoint first, then the irreversibility warning, then the guard conditions. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant fact (irreversible) is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials an agent needs — reversibility, refusal conditions, and the force escape hatch. The missing piece is provider defaulting/resolution, which matters because provider is not required.

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 real meaning for force (overrides the default/loaded-model protection) that the schema only hints at. However the provider parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the schema description coverage is only 67%, so the gap is not fully compensated.

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?

A specific verb plus resource (delete a model), scoped to an ollama provider and to the DELETE /api/delete endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like unload_model, prune_models, or pull_model, which an agent could confuse with deletion or restoration.

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?

It states meaningful preconditions — it refuses to delete the default_model or a currently-loaded model unless force=true — which effectively tells the agent when the call will fail. However, no alternative tool is named, so there is no guidance on when to delete versus unload or prune.

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