treeflow_delete_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the delete action and does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to dependent intents or conversations, or whether it triggers retraining. For a destructive operation, 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 one short sentence with no filler and gets directly to the action and object. That is an appropriately concise structure for a simple deletion tool, even though the content is thin.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal for a destructive operation: it does not explain success/error behavior, side effects, or whether deletion is reversible. The only reason it is not a 1 is that the schema fully documents the two required parameters.

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 both parameters clearly (tree_id as 'ID del bot/árbol' and entity_id as 'ID de la entidad a eliminar'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail about entity_id format, validation, or how to find valid values, so it does not go 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 uses a specific verb ('Elimina') and a specific resource ('entidad NLU'), so it is not a tautology. It also distinguishes this from sibling delete tools for branches, leafs, intents, message templates, and fertilizers by naming the entity resource. However, it does not clarify the operational scope (e.g., deletion within a particular tree) or how it differs from create/update/list_entity.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over create_entity, update_entity, list_entities, or the other delete tools. It also omits prerequisites such as obtaining a valid entity_id or checking whether deletion could break references. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the one-line desc.

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