Api entities destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context — that a Django ProtectedError is surfaced as a 409 Conflict listing dependents — which tells the agent how failure looks and that deletion may be blocked by references. It stops short of saying what gets destroyed or whether cascade occurs, and the sentence is truncated.

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 single sentence is short but is cut off mid-thought ('with the list of'), leaving an incomplete statement. Brevity here reflects missing content, not discipline.

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 single-resource deletion with no output schema, the description should say what is deleted, by what identifier, and what the blocked-deletion case implies. Only the last item is partially covered; the core operation is undocumented.

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?

With only one required 'id' parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does not: it never indicates that the id identifies the entity instance to delete. The 409 text says nothing about the parameter.

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 never states that this tool deletes an entity; it only describes an internal error-to-HTTP mapping. The verb is implicit at best, and the resource is never named, so an agent must infer 'destroy' from the tool name and annotations rather than the text.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g. sibling cascade_info or object_retrieve tools) is mentioned. The only usable hint is that deletion may fail when protected relations exist.

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