delete_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes entities and relationships, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: it does not specify if deletions are permanent, require specific permissions, have side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or include rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Korean, making it concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by adding minimal context to enhance clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive deletion), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects: parameter meaning, behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), and output expectations. For a mutation tool with significant gaps in structured data, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'entityNames' is undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic information about this parameter—it does not explain what 'entityNames' represents, its format, or examples. With one required parameter and no compensation in the description, this leaves users guessing about proper usage.

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 '엔티티와 관련 관계를 삭제합니다' (Deletes entities and related relationships) states a clear verb ('deletes') and resource ('entities and related relationships'), which is better than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_observations' or 'delete_relations', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope compared to 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'delete_observations' or 'delete_relations', which handle different deletion tasks. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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