Delete Observations

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

The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'Silent if an observation does not exist' expands on the idempotentHint and clarifies the tool's no-op behavior. It does not contradict any annotations and adds useful context 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant filler. Every sentence adds value, including the behavioral note about silence.

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 destructive annotation, the presence of an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core operation and the key edge case of missing observations, though it does not address behavior when the entity itself is missing, which would be useful but is not critical given the tool's focused purpose.

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 covers the namespace parameter in detail and the deletions array structure via nested property descriptions. The tool description adds some meaning with 'specific observations' but does not meaningfully compensate for the 50% schema description coverage at the top level; the deletions parameter lacks an explicit top-level description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('specific observations from entities in the knowledge graph'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_entities, delete_relations, and add_observations.

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 clearly states the tool's scope (deleting observations from entities), which implies when it should be used versus sibling tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focused wording provides enough context for selection.

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