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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing CASCADE semantics — relations and links are removed too — but it says nothing about whether the entity is recoverable, whether it goes to trash, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive cascade consequence in parentheses; nothing redundant or padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description supplies the key missing behavior (cascade deletion). Only reversibility/trash behavior and routing against siblings are 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 100%, including a detailed workspace_id description covering UUID/name and the fixed-token case, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Elimina una entidad del knowledge graph'), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as delete_entity_relation, merge_entities, or restore_from_trash, but the core action is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete an entity versus merging (merge_entities), editing (update_entity/upsert_entity), or recovering it (restore_from_trash). Usage is only implied by the tool name; no alternatives or conditions are named.

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