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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely important context that the annotations cannot express: the deletion is soft and existing data records survive. That clarifies the actual blast radius of a tool flagged 'destructive'. It stops short of saying whether the soft-delete is reversible or how to restore it.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (soft-delete, data preserved) is front-loaded. Nothing wastes the agent's attention.

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 mutation, the annotations carry the safety profile and the description supplies the soft-delete nuance, which is the key missing piece. No output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but reversibility and any post-delete state are still unstated.

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?

Only one parameter (entity_id) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with an example value ('ENT3'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (soft-delete) and resource (entity schema), and the qualifier 'schema' distinguishes it from sibling mutations like delete_field, delete_endpoint, and delete_function. An agent can identify the target without opening the schema.

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 explains the semantic effect of the deletion but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether the entity must be empty, or when to prefer update_entity). Nothing routes the agent between delete_entity and its siblings.

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