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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value on top: irreversibility, per-entity refusal logic, and a concrete example ('a live pricing equation is refused'), which is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the caution and refusal caveat following. The fourteen-item entity enumeration duplicates text already in the schema's entity description, which is the one place words could be saved.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema destructive mutation, the description covers irreversibility, entity validation, and refusal behavior. It leaves unstated what a successful delete returns and how the idempotentHint manifests (e.g. deleting an already-removed id), which is the remaining gap.

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 both parameters are fully described in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the schema's entity enumeration verbatim, adding only the 'writable entity' framing and the pointer to describeDataModel for the live writable set.

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 (delete) and an exact resource scope: one row of an enumerated set of writable entities. The entity list makes the target unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like save or import_write, so the agent must infer that this is the removal counterpart to those 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?

Provides a genuine pre-flight pointer ('see describeQueryableFields(entity)') and warns the operation is Irreversible, which implies caution before use. However, it never states when to choose delete versus alternatives (e.g. deactivating via save) or the conditions under which a delete should not be attempted beyond the vague 'each entity has its own refusals'.

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