ftrack_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Delete an entity from ftrack' without noting that deletion is permanent, may require elevated permissions, or could trigger cascading effects. This is a high-risk destructive operation, and the description adds no transparency beyond the verb itself.

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, complete sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, which is why it does not receive a 5.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params) but destructive. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, irreversibility, or permission requirements. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the full context of deletion, especially for an agent that must decide whether to call this tool.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions: 'entity_id' is the ID and 'entity_type' is the type. Schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the target (an entity from ftrack). This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, or query. The tool name 'ftrack_delete' aligns directly with the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or disambiguation from other delete-like tools (e.g., ftrack_delete_delayed_job). The agent is left to infer that it should be used whenever deletion of a generic entity is intended, but without explicit context.

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