delete_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important guardrail: system default entities (ID 1) for actors/classes/states are protected. However, it is silent on whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to references (maps, events, quests), and what authorization is required for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the guardrail second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and one critical constraint, but omits permanence, side effects on related data, and the success/failure response shape an agent would want before invoking a delete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's mention of ID 1 protection adds a small amount of meaning about valid id values but nothing about the entityType enum behavior.

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 states a specific verb (delete) and resource (entity), and the 'by ID' phrasing matches the required id parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling deletions such as delete_map and delete_event, though it never names the alternative tools explicitly.

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?

It implies usage through the destructive verb and gives one concrete constraint (system default entities with ID 1 cannot be deleted), but provides no when-to-use guidance, no routing to get_entity/update_entity for non-deletion needs, and no prerequisites or permissions context.

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