Forget an entity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the operation is a soft retire, the entity and its relations stop appearing in searches, and the underlying data remains in the database. It does not address permissions, reversibility, or cascade limits, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 compact sentences with the operation and its effect front-loaded. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 two-parameter soft-delete tool with no output schema, the behavioral explanation is solid. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics and any note on reversibility or permission requirements leaves meaningful gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It never mentions the required 'name' parameter or the optional 'entity_type' enum, leaving the agent to rely entirely on raw schema types.

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 ('Retire') and resource ('an entity with its facts and relations'), making the operation's scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like 'remember' or 'correct_fact', but the core action is 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?

Usage is implied by 'Retire an entity' and the note that it stops appearing in searches, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as 'correct_fact' or 'remember'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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