delete_observations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying mutation/destructive action) but provides no additional context about permissions needed, whether deletions are permanent or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to related data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one main parameter and clear schema documentation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'observations' are in this context, what the deletion affects, whether there are side effects, or what the response looks like. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'deletions' parameter and its nested structure. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes an 'observation', format examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('specific observations from entities in the knowledge graph'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_entities' by focusing on observations rather than entire entities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'delete_relations' also deletes things).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_entities' or 'delete_relations'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for deleting observations versus other deletion operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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