entity_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key side-effect: no commit or publication happens. However, it does not mention that deletion is likely irreversible, whether related entities are affected, or whether the working tree is modified beyond removing the entity.

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 a single tight sentence with every word contributing to the core meaning, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is not padded, though the highly condensed form leaves little room for needed operational context.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It tells the agent what the tool does but not enough about prerequisites, path semantics, or side effects to invoke it safely and correctly. The output schema covers return values but not invocation semantics.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The agent cannot determine the relationship between repository_path, entity_path, entity_name, and declaration_path from the description, so parameter meaning is left entirely to inference from names alone.

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 the action (delete), the target (one local entity), and the scope (without commit or publication). This distinguishes it from entity_update/entity_create and signals it is not a repository commit/publish operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'without commit or publication' gives useful context about when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or which sibling tools should be used instead. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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