delete_entity

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose side effects. It does far more than say 'delete': it states that the tool removes all brushes, refuses worldspawn, writes the file, triggers an automatic editor reload, and asks before overwriting unsaved edits, defaulting to keeping the editor version.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and scope, then stacks only high-value behavioral caveats. There is no repetition or fluff.

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 file-writing operation with no annotations, the description covers the outcome, the guard, the persistence behavior, and the unsaved-edits conflict policy. The main missing piece is operational detail about index; everything else an agent needs to anticipate side effects is present.

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?

map_path is already explained in the schema, but the required index parameter has no schema description and the tool description never explains what index identifies, how it is obtained, or whether it is zero-based. With schema description coverage at 50%, this is a meaningful gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete an entity') and adds scope ('and all its brushes'), which clearly separates it from sibling delete_brush. It also notes the worldspawn exclusion, giving the agent a precise behavioral boundary.

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 operation is described clearly enough that the agent can infer when to call it, and the worldspawn refusal is a useful when-not condition. However, it never names alternatives such as delete_brush or undo_last_edit, nor does it state when those should be preferred, so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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