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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description aligns with that. It adds value by stating the operation is irreversible and by explaining that each entity has its own refusal rules (e.g., live pricing equation), which is beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the action and entity list, and includes the critical irreversibility warning immediately. No wasted words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, entity set, irreversibility, and refusal mechanism. It does not mention the return value or error handling, but these are not strictly necessary for a delete operation given the annotations and simple parameter set.

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% (both 'entity' and 'id' have descriptions). The description adds a note that the server validates the entity value and that describeDataModel names the current writable set, which is a minor enhancement but does not materially expand on parameter semantics beyond 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 description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('one row of a writable entity') and enumerates the exact entities it applies to. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'save' or 'update' by specifying the operation and scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (to delete a row) and cautions about irreversibility and entity-specific refusals, referencing describeQueryableFields for details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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