delete_entities

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that confirm=true is mandatory, that the operation is all-or-nothing, that a Ctrl+Z undoes it, and that a nonexistent handle aborts the whole batch with the missing handles listed in the error. That is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the destructive warning, then when-to-use, flow, parameters and an example in a tight, well-ordered block. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers preconditions, error behavior, and the confirmation flow. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does reasonably well: handles is a list of hex strings, dry_run previews what would be deleted, confirm gates the actual deletion, plus a concrete usage example. It stops short of documenting defaults or full type detail, but the critical semantics are present.

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 (delete entities by handle) with scope clearly bounded. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling dxf_delete_entities, leaving an agent to infer which tool to pick between them.

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?

Explicitly states WHEN TO USE ('only when the user asked to delete') and lays out the required flow (dry_run first, then confirm=true). The alternative path is named and conditioned, leaving nothing to inference.

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