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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it executes directly for the authenticated app owner, clarifying authorization scope, and explains the expected_count safety check that aborts on mismatch. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The key action and safety check are front-loaded. The description is efficient and clean, with every sentence earning its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core action, safety mechanism, and authorization. Some ambiguity remains about whether filters and record_ids can be combined, but for a destructive tool with annotations, the description is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The description mentions record_ids and filters for exact matches and expected_count as a safety check, but these are already stated in the schema. It adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('entity records'), and clarifies the method (by ID or exact-match filters). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_ab_test and delete_secret, and from create/update entity record tools.

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 implies usage for exact deletions but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_entity_records or create_entity_records. There is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on intent.

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