Delete entities

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real beyond-annotation context: deletions cascade to all touching relations, nonexistent names are silently ignored, and the deleted entities/relations are returned in full. The only redundancy is restating the return payload, which the output schema already covers.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its cascade scope, then the routing hint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what matters: scope of destruction, no-op behavior for missing names, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

One required parameter (entityNames) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no extra semantics such as case sensitivity, exact-match rules, or batch size limits, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Delete entities by name") plus the non-obvious cascade scope ("with every relation that touches them"). It also names a sibling, delete_observations, so an agent can distinguish it from the fact-level deletion tool without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere when the intent differs: "To remove single facts from an entity, see delete_observations." Combined with the cascade statement, the agent knows both when to use this tool and when not to.

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