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

Beyond destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, it discloses irreversibility, automatic cleanup of incoming links, a human-confirmation requirement, and the required role. These details substantially clarify the operation's consequences and authorization requirements, and they agree with 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?

Four short sentences front-load the destructive action and then cover cascading link cleanup, confirmation, irreversibility, and authorization. Every sentence supplies useful operational information without repetition or filler.

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 high-risk deletion tool, the description covers the most important behavioral and safety context. Remaining gaps include undocumented identifier parameters and, with no output schema, no indication of success responses or behavior for missing or already-deleted entities.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate but provides no parameter-specific guidance. It does not explain where to obtain campaignId or entityId, their expected formats, or the need for entityType to match the target; only entityType is documented in the schema.

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 opening sentence precisely identifies the action, resource, cardinality, and permanence: permanently deleting one entity. The statement that links from other entities are cleared further distinguishes full entity deletion from merely removing a relationship.

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 gives clear preconditions by requiring DM confirmation and the Editor role before invocation. It does not explicitly direct agents to alternatives such as update_entity for non-destructive changes or remove_relationship when only a link should be removed.

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