Delete Entities

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the cascading deletion of relations and observations, and the silent behavior when an entity doesn't exist. These details are not present in the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and are valuable for an agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('Delete entities...') and no filler. The cascade and silent behavior are concise additions that earn their 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior (cascading deletion, silent idempotency). It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and the description is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool deletes entities with a cascading effect on associated relations and observations, using specific verbs ('Delete') and the resource ('entities'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_relations and delete_observations by explicitly mentioning the cascading scope.

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 makes the use case clear: use this when you want to delete an entity and all its associated data. It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools (e.g., delete_relations for relations only), though it doesn't explicitly say 'use delete_relations instead when you only want to delete relations.' This is a minor gap.

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