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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: explains that in v5 omitting locale deletes only the default-locale version while other locales stay live, that the return contains a hint in that case, that Single Type entry_id is a placeholder and unvalidated, and which error codes signal bad input. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers parameter nuance in short labeled sentences. It is long, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning; the return-shape sentence is slightly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with zero schema coverage, the description covers version differences, localization pitfalls, Single Types, error modes, and verification path. Nothing an agent needs before calling is absent.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully: it defines collection (API-ID charset, no plugin routes, invalid_collection error), entry_id (documentId vs numeric id, charset, invalid_id error), locale (version selection, '*' semantics, null default behavior), and workspace (slug, optional when only one workspace).

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 ("Einen Strapi-Eintrag löschen") with precise scope details (collection API-ID, entry_id semantics). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, strapi_unpublish_entry, so an agent must infer delete-vs-unpublish, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete guidance: always pass locale explicitly for localized content types, use locale='*' to wipe all language versions, and verify results with strapi_list_entries(locale=...). It also handles the Single Type edge case. Missing only an explicit when-not-to-use / alternative recommendation versus unpublish.

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