remove_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is mutating, creates a new model version, is reversible, preserves entity IDs, and clarifies nothing is hard-destroyed. It also details per-type consequences (tombstoning, orphaning, clearing fields) with precise outcomes, meeting the highest transparency bar.

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 partly lengthy but structured with a clear lead sentence, key facts (mutating, reversible, dispatches on entity_type), and organized bullet points for each type. It uses front-loaded information and every sentence adds value—no redundancy. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all critical operational aspects: what the tool does, reversibility, per-type consequences, relationship to edit tools, and that it is not destructive. Given the presence of an output schema for return value details, the description is complete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already describes three of four parameters clearly (model_id, entity_id, entity_type), giving 75% coverage. The description adds substantial semantic value to the entity_type parameter by explaining the consequence for each enum value, going beyond the schema. It doesn't address server_version, but that's a minor gap. Overall, it compensates for coverage and adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: soft-delete a single entity of any core type, and explicitly distinguishes it from related edit_* tools by explaining when to use removal vs. field changes. It also names the reversible counterpart restore_entity, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to remove an entity) and when not to (to change fields, use edit_*). It also highlights reversibility and mentions the alternative restore_entity, giving clear usage context. The per-type consequences further guide when removing might trigger unintended effects.

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