Data: delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is disclosed structurally. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether the delete is hard or soft, whether it cascades to related records, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed. With annotations carrying the safety burden the bar is lower, but the description contributes zero extra behavior.

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 three-word fragment is not concise so much as under-specified; it is front-loaded but contains no informational payload. As with a bare single-word description, brevity here reflects omission rather than efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition omits effect scope, recoverability, and permission requirements. The annotations cover the destructive flag, but an agent still lacks the context needed to call this safely, and the low parameter count does not excuse the gap.

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 (id, entity) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond that, which lands squarely on the baseline of 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 "Delete a record" essentially restates the tool name (data_delete) and title (Data: delete) with a generic resource noun. It gives no way to distinguish this from the many sibling delete tools (entities_delete, fields_delete, files_delete, secrets_delete, users_delete) or from data_get/data_create/data_update. This is tautological rather than differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent cannot infer from the text when data_delete is the right choice versus entities_delete or files_delete.

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