delete_entity

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true.concat The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it reads the entity before deleting and reports what was deleted, which signals a safer, more transparent destructive operation. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

A single sentence packs the action, scope, and critical behavioral nuance (read-first, report deletion) with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded. The only minor ambiguity is the unexplained 'layer 1,' but that does not add bloat.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers what it deletes and that it reports results, and annotations cover destructiveness. However, it omits which resources 'support delete,' how to discover them, and how it differs from other delete tools. With no output schema, a bit more guidance about the reported result would improve completeness.

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 only 50%; the resource parameter is documented in the schema, but id is not. The description says 'one entity' but adds no detail about id formats, validation, how resource names/paths are resolved, or the 'see read_meta' relationship. It does not meaningfully compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource scope ('any resource that supports delete'), and adds a distinctive behavioral detail: 'Reads it first and reports what was deleted.' It is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling delete tools like delete_card, delete_bulk, or admin_delete beyond the generic 'any resource' phrasing.

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 about when to use this generic delete_entity versus the more specialized delete_card, delete_relation, delete_bulk, or admin_delete siblings. The phrase 'any resource that supports delete' gives scope but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection logic. An agent must infer the intended use from the tool name and sibling list.

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