delete_entities

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-establish that it mutates. It does add real value beyond them: the deletion is logical rather than physical and remains in history, which materially changes how an agent reasons about recoverability.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the compatibility status front-loaded so the agent learns the routing rule before the behavioral caveat. Slightly better ordering would put the soft-delete semantics first for anyone who has already decided to call it.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the two highest-value facts (soft delete, prefer alternatives) but is silent on return values, behavior for nonexistent names, and batch semantics. Adequate to avoid misuse, not complete to call confidently.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing: no mention of entity names, the 100-item cap, or per-item length limits. The agent gets no guidance on what to pass or how failures on unknown names behave.

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 signals deletion and identifies the tool as a legacy compatibility shim over the v2 SQLite store, but it never states the resource being deleted (entities) or that the operation targets a list of names. An agent knows it's 'a deletion' but must infer what it deletes from the tool name alone.

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?

"New callers should prefer versioned native memory tools" is an explicit when-not-to-use signal with a named alternative direction. It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g. forget_memory), so the routing is clear but not fully concrete.

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