Delete ICC Plus entity

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

Annotations already carry the destructive profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds one useful behavioral context: the default policy rejects deletions that create dangling references. However, it does not disclose whether deletions are reversible, what happens to dependent entities beyond the rejection, or what a successful delete returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the key behavioral constraint, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, zero schema descriptions, and a destructiveHint, the definition should explain parameter meaning, dry_run semantics, and success/failure behavior — none of which are present. This is comparable to the update_drive calibration case (4 params, 50% coverage, no annotations), which was also scored 2 for incompleteness.

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%, so the description bore the duty to explain reference, type, dry_run, expected_revision, and validation_policy — and it explains none of them by name. The default-policy sentence does give practical meaning to the default validation_policy value ('no_new_errors'), but that is partial credit at best.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('one entity'), and the 'one' qualifier rules out bulk deletion, adding precision over the title. The operation is unambiguous among the sibling set, which contains only create/update/duplicate/move/patch as mutation alternatives, though the description does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives such as update_entity or patch for modifying rather than removing an entity. The dangling-reference note hints at validation considerations but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool or how to avoid the default rejection (e.g., via dry_run).

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