Delete Entity by Handle

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

The annotations mark destructiveHint as false, yet the description says the tool will delete an entity from the file. Deleting an entity is a destructive update, at least to the editable copy, so the description contradicts the annotations. This is a serious annotation contradiction.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and target, the second gives the handle source. No filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the key invocation flow (read handle, delete from editable copy) and an output schema is present, so return values need not be described. However, it omits prerequisite/irreversibility context and the destructive annotation conflict leaves the behavioral model inconsistent, so completeness is only adequate.

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?

The description adds useful parameter context by explaining that the handle comes from any read tool result and by tying file_path to the editable copy, partially compensating for the schema coverage signal. It does not detail file path creation or path syntax, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 action (Delete), a precise resource (a single entity), an identifier method (by handle), and a target scope (the editable copy). It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes this tool from sibling read and creation 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?

It clearly instructs the agent to obtain handles from any read tool because they include a handle field, and restricts deletion to the editable copy. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use wording, but there is no competing delete sibling, so the context is sufficient.

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