Entity Delete Tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does state that deletion 'cannot be undone,' which is a critical warning. However, it does not disclose cascading effects, failure behavior when the object is missing, permissions, or whether deletion is hard or soft. The irreversibility warning is valuable but incomplete.

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 two short sentences: the first states the action and target, and the second warns about irreversibility. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 delete-by-ID operation, the description covers the core action and irreversibility, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it does not mention whether deletion cascades to related records, whether the entity type must be a valid Grocy entity, or what happens if the object does not exist, which would matter for a destructive tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the main description adds no parameter detail. The schema itself adequately documents entity as an entity type name and obj_id as the object ID, including the pointer to entity_list_tool.

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 ('Delete'), names the resource ('a Grocy entity object'), and scopes the operation ('by its ID'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling entity operations like entity_create_tool, entity_update_tool, and entity_list_tool. The irreversibility warning also reinforces the action's nature.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task_delete_tool, file_delete_tool, or other specialized deletion tools. The schema's obj_id parameter does suggest using entity_list_tool to find IDs, which is a useful prerequisite, but there are no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.

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